ABSTRACT
Friction ridge identification procedures have been widely discussed in the literature and in other forums. Good literature coverage of the issues has been given by Cowger (1983), Grieve (1988, 1990a), Ashbaugh (1999b), and Wertheim (2000). The Internet is also a valuable source of information regarding the identification process. Edward German’s site (https://www.onin.com/fp) is a reference on these matters, covering the basic concepts and a discussion of some known cases of wrong identifications. Finally, the acceptability of fingerprint evidence as being scientific in nature has been subject to a
Daubert
hearing in the U.S. (
U.S. v. Mitchell
, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Criminal No. 96-00407). This hearing led both parties to present their views on the underlying principles of fingerprint identification. The
Mitchell
case has been followed by more than 20
Daubert
hearings in the U.S. (the most recent being
U.S. v. Llera Plaza
, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Criminal No. 98-362-10,11,12), with unprecedented press coverage (e.g., the article by Specter [2002]) as well as strong reactions from a lawyer (Faigman 2002) and a social scientist (Cole 2000). The outcome of all hearings was that fingerprint evidence passed the
Daubert
test. Judicial notice was given to the fact that fingerprints are permanent and unique. All the documents associated with these hearings can be found on German’s Internet site. We also would like to draw attention to the excellent paper by Epstein (2002), the federal defender in both the
Mitchell
and
Llera Plaza
cases.
