Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part IEvidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part IIConvergences between Systems
- Part IIIOn Evidential Inferences
- Part IVExpert Evidence
- 12From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
- 13Latent Justice
- 14Prevention and Education
- 15Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
- Part VStandards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
13 - Latent Justice
Fingerprint Evidence and the Limits of Adversarialism in England, Australia and New Zealand
from Part IV - Expert Evidence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2022
Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part IEvidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part IIConvergences between Systems
- Part IIIOn Evidential Inferences
- Part IVExpert Evidence
- 12From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
- 13Latent Justice
- 14Prevention and Education
- 15Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
- Part VStandards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter offers a critical review of reported fingerprint cases in three common law jurisdictions covering the period from the beginning of the twentieth century until the time of publication. It considers how the tools of adversarialism were applied to the admissibility and use of fingerprint evidence in criminal proceedings. It provides a detailed survey of the manner in which defence and appellate counsel contested fingerprint evidence, how courts responded to these challenges in trials and appeals and, implicitly, how examiners testified and prosecutors presented this evidence. In order to facilitate the analysis, the chapter draws upon mainstream scientific research and recommendations. This scientific knowledge operates as a standard that can be used to evaluate legal representations and uses of fingerprint evidence, as well as the effectiveness of legal rules, procedures and personnel. The chapter concludes that legal institutions in each one of these jurisdictions were basically inattentive to the epistemological dimensions of latent fingerprint evidence. Adversarial trial safeguards, including appeals, did not bring the lack of testing and systematic over-claiming to the attention of the courts.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Evidential Legal ReasoningCrossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions, pp. 248 - 295Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Beavan, C. (2001). Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science (London: Hyperion).Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2001). Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2004). Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and Back Again. American Criminal Law Review, 41 (3), 1189–276.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2009). Forensics Without Uniqueness, Conclusions Without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification. Law, Probability, and Risk, 8(3), 233–55.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2014). Individualization Is Dead, Long Live Individualization! Reforms of Reporting Practices for Fingerprint Analysis in the United States. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(2), 117–50.Google Scholar
Cole, S. and Roberts, A. (2012). Certainty, Individualisation and the Subjective Nature of Expert Fingerprint Evidence. Criminal Law Review, 12, 824–49.Google Scholar
Dror, I. et al. (2006). Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74–78.Google Scholar
Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., eds. (2004). The Trial on Trial: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2015). Forensic Science Evidence and the Conditions for Rational (Jury) Evaluation. Melbourne University Law Review, 39(1), 77–127.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2019). Latent Science: A History of Australian Fingerprint Evidence in Australia. University of Queensland Law Journal, 38(2), 301–65.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2020). Fingerprint Evidence in New Zealand Courts: The Oversight of Overstatement. New Zealand Universities Law Review, 29, 1–29.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. and Cunliffe, E. (2016). Cinderella Story? The Social Production of a Forensic ‘Science’. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106(2), 219–73Google Scholar
Edmond, G. and San Roque, M. (2012). The Cool Crucible: Forensic Science and the Frailty of the Criminal Trial. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. et al. (2014). Evidence-Based Forensic Initiative. How to Cross-Examine Forensic Scientists: A Guide for Lawyer. Australian Bar Review, 39, 174–97.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Hamer, D. and Cunliffe, E. (2016). A Little Ignorance Is a Dangerous Thing: Engaging with Exogenous Knowledge Not Adduced by the Parties. Griffith Law Review, 25(3), 383–413.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Martire, K. and San Roque, M. (2017). Expert Reports in the Forensic Sciences. UNSW Law Journal, 40(2), 590–637.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Tangen, J., Searston, R. and Dror, I. (2014). Contextual Bias and Cross-Contamination in the Forensic Sciences: The Implications for Investigations, Plea Bargains, Trials and Appeals. Law, Probability & Risk, 14, 1–25.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Carr, S. and Piasecki, E. (2018). Science Friction: Streamlined Forensic Reporting. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(4), 764–792.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E. and Hamer, D. (2020). Fingerprint Comparison and Adversarialism: The Scientific and Historical Evidence. Modern Law Review, 83(6), 1287–327.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E., Martire, K. and San Roque, M. (2019). Forensic Science Evidence and the Limits of Cross-Examination. Melbourne University Law Review, 42(3), 858–920.Google Scholar
Evett, I. and Williams, R. (1996). Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales. Journal of Forensic Identification, 46, 49.Google Scholar
Groebner, V. (2007). Who Are You? Identification, Deception and Surveillance in Early Modern Europe (New York: Zone).Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook (Oxford: Wiley).Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Law’s Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Settings. American Journal of Public Health, 95(S1), 49–58.Google Scholar
Lander, E. (2017). Response to the ANZFSS council statement on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report. Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 49, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law Commission of England and Wales. (2011). Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, 34 Law Commission Report No 325 (HMSO, London).Google Scholar
Leo, R. and Drizin, S. (2004). The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., Cole, S., McNally, R. and Jordan, K. (2008). Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Evidence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 237–41.Google Scholar
Morling, T. (1987). Report of the Commissioner the Hon Mr Justice TR Morling: Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Chamberlain Convictions (Canberra: Government Printer).Google Scholar
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2012). Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach (US Department of Commerce).Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Academies Press), 142–3 (NRC Report).Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (Report, 20 September 2016).Google Scholar
Roberts, R., Wilmore, C. and Davis, G. (1993). The Role of Forensic Science Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study No 11 (London: HMSO).Google Scholar
Saks, M. and Faigman, D. (2008). Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It. Annual Review of Law & Social Science, 4, 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saks, M. and Koehler, J. (2005). The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science. Science, 309, 892–5.Google Scholar
Sengoopta, C. (2003). Imprint of the Raj: How Fingerprinting Was Born in Colonial India (London: PanMacMillan).Google Scholar
Tangen, J., Thompson, M. and McCarthy, D. (2011). Identifying Fingerprint Expertise. Psychological Science, 22, 995–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. (2005). Analyzing the Relevance and Admissibility of Bullet-Lead Evidence: Did the NRC Report Miss the Target? Jurimetrics Journal, 46(1), 65–89.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. et al. (2017). Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis – Latent Fingerprint Examination (AAAS) (AAAS Report).Google Scholar
Torpey, J. and Caplan, J. (eds). (2001). Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2011). Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Fingerprint Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 773–8.Google Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2012). Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners. PloS One, 7, e32800.Google Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2014). Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations. Plos One, 9, e110179.Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice. (2006). A Review of the FBI’s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case (US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division).Google Scholar
Walker, C. and Starmer, K. (eds.). (1999). Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error (London: Blackstone).Google Scholar
White, D. et al. (2014). Passport Officers’ Errors in Face Matching. PLoS ONE, 9(8), 1–6.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.