Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
The myth of fingerprints
By Edward J. Imwinkelried; Michael Cherry
There was a time — not very long ago — when we considered fingerprints
to be the gold standard of scientific evidence. We assumed that
fingerprint analysts were virtually infallible. Defense counsel not only
rarely challenged the admissibility of fingerprint testimony; but on
many occasions they also stipulated to the admission of the findings of
However, in the past few years we have become more skeptical about the
opinions of fingerprint examiners. The initial shock came when
proficiency tests revealed a substantial margin of error, including
false positives, in examiners’ findings.1 Finally, in 2002, the forensic science community was stunned when Judge Pollak excluded fingerprint testimony in United States v. Llera Plaza,2 before changing his mind.3
To date, most of the attention has focused on the question of the
reliability of the process by which the fingerprint expert “matches” the
inked impression with the latent found at the c
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.