Fingerprint Challenges Annotated Bibliography ... Fingerprint Challenges Annotated Bibliography 2017 3 July 31, 2017 seven years later, the state postconviction court vacated her conviction

Fingerprint Challenges Annotated Bibliography 2017 New York State Defenders Association

By Ken Strutin

July 31, 2017

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

FEDERAL CASES .....................................................................................................................2 STATE CASES...........................................................................................................................7

BOOKS ......................................................................................................................................9 BOOK CHAPTERS .................................................................................................................. 11

REPORTS, GUIDES, and MANUALS ..................................................................................... 12 SCHOLARLY and PRACTICE ARTICLES ............................................................................. 16

AMERICAN LAW REPORTS ................................................................................................. 41 BIBLIOGRAPHIES .................................................................................................................. 43

RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 44 NY FEDERAL CASES ............................................................................................................. 50

NY STATE CASES .................................................................................................................. 54 NY RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 59

INTRODUCTION

Developments in courtrooms, academia and government institutions are laying the groundwork

for defense challenges to fingerprint matches.1 Most noteworthy are the Inspector General's

Report in the Brandon Mayfield case;2 the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Patterson;3

a flurry of expert, scholarly and judicial criticism;4 the exhortations of Strengthening Forensic

Science5 in 2009 and the PCAST6 report in 2016 and other reports;7 and the exposition of

1 See Simon A. Cole, Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and

Back Again, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1189 (2004) (discussing the problems of validating forensic methods with

history and judicial acceptance rather than scientific inquiry); Tamara Francita Lawson, Can Fingerprints Lie?: Re-

weighing Fingerprint Evidence in Criminal Jury Trials, 31 Am. J. Crim. L. 1 (2003) (discussing fingerprint science,

misidentification and examiner error); Lisa J. Steele, Defense Challenge to Fingerprints, 40 Crim. L. Bull. 213

(2004) (discussing (1) recovered evidence; (2) the expert witness; (3) the science of fingerprint identification; (4)

methodology used in case on trial; (5) the expert's opinion; and (6) legitimate access). See generally Chp 16 Fingerprints in Scientific Evidence (Lexis-Nexis 2016). 2 See Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case (OIG 2006). 3 See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626, 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2005). 4 See, e.g., Hon. Alex Kozinski, Preface—Criminal Law 2.0, 44 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. iii (2015)

("Fingerprint evidence is foolproof. Not so. Identifying prints that are taken by police using fingerprinting

equipment and proper technique may be a relatively simple process, but latent prints left in the field are often

smudged and incomplete, and the identification process becomes more art than science. When tested by rigorous

scientific methods, fingerprint examiners turn out to have a significant error rate." Id. at iv). See generally Sue

Russell, Why Fingerprints Aren't the Proof We Thought They Were, Pacific Std., Sept. 20, 2012. 5 See Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (NAS 2009). See also Jacqueline

McMurtrie, Swirls and Whorls: Litigating Post-Conviction Claims of Fingerprint Misidentification After the NAS

Report, 2010 Utah L. Rev. 267. See generally Ken Strutin, Strengthening Forensic Science: The Next Wave of Scholarship, LLRX, Nov. 23, 2009. 6 See Report on Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods

(PCAST 2016). See generally Ken Strutin, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Casts Doubt

on Criminal Forensics, LLRX, Mar. 19, 2017. 7 See, e.g., Fingerprint Inquiry Report (Scotland 2011) (Discussing limits on conclusions offered by fingerprint

examiners in court: 38.13. "The ability of any examiner to ‘individualise’ without the potential for any error at the

https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0601/final.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0601/final.pdf http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Commonwealth+v.+Patterson,+445+Mass.+626&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&case=3290560637726127308&scilh=0 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=41+Am.+Crim.+L.+Rev.+1189&key=0d700c4d42eea71b51300448e1dae731 https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=41+Am.+Crim.+L.+Rev.+1189&key=0d700c4d42eea71b51300448e1dae731 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1427959 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1427959 http://www.rmdiai.org/pdf/Library/DefenseChallengeToFingerprints.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0601/final.pdf http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Commonwealth+v.+Patterson,+445+Mass.+626&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&case=3290560637726127308&scilh=0 https://georgetownlawjournal.org/assets/kozinski-arcp-preface-9a990f08f3f006558eaa03ccc440d3078f5899b3426ec47aaedb89c606caeae7.pdf https://psmag.com/news/why-fingerprints-arent-proof-47079 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2405096 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2405096 https://www.llrx.com/2009/11/strengthening-forensic-science-the-next-wave-of-scholarship/ https://www.llrx.com/2009/11/strengthening-forensic-science-the-next-wave-of-scholarship/ https://www.obamawhitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports https://www.llrx.com/2017/03/report-presidents-council-of-advisors-on-science-and-technology-casts-doubt-on-criminal-forensics/ https://www.llrx.com/2017/03/report-presidents-council-of-advisors-on-science-and-technology-casts-doubt-on-criminal-forensics/ https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20150428160012/http:/www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/21.html

Fingerprint Challenges Annotated Bibliography 2017

2

July 31, 2017

fingerprint exonerations.8 This collection of materials highlights key opinions,9 significant

articles and online resources concerning accuracy, reliability, and validity10 as well as

authenticity of fingerprint evidence.11 It also includes information on scientific and technological

developments pushing the frontiers of biometric analysis.12

FEDERAL CASES

Canen v. Chapman, 847 F.3d 407, 408-409 (7th Cir. 2017)13

"Lana Canen was convicted of felony murder on August 10, 2005 in Indiana state court. Over

claimed level of one person in the whole of human history is not scientifically validated. Fingerprint examiners do

not presently base their conclusions on validated statistics of the incidence of variation in friction ridge details in the

population. Their opinions on ‘sufficiency’ are derived from personal assessments founded in training and personal experience. The second proposition is, accordingly, one that cannot be substantiated." Id. at 683 (footnote omitted)). 8 See Simon A. Cole, Prevalence and Potential Causes of Wrongful Conviction by Fingerprint Evidence, 37 Golden

Gate U. L. Rev. 39 (2006); Simon A. Cole, More Than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint

Identification, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 985 (2005). See also Cases May Be Jeopardized After Orange County

Fingerprint Analyst Accused of Mishandling Evidence, WFTV, Feb. 8, 2017 ("An Orange County [Florida] Sheriff's

Office fingerprint analyst is off the job and under investigation after being accused of mishandling evidence, clerical

errors, failure to identify prints and mislabeling of print cards. Because of the accusations, thousands of criminal

cases are under the microscope. Defense attorneys will have to review more than 2,600 cases with ties to the

analyst."); Rene Stutzman, Public Defender Reviewing 1,675 Cases Amid Fingerprint Investigation, Orlando

Sentinel, Feb. 8, 2017. 9 See generally "Court of Appeals Decisions; District Court Decisions; State Court Decisions" in 2-16 Scientific

Evidence § 16.10 n. 361 (Lexis-Nexis 2016) (collection of cases); Reviewing Challenge to the Admissibility of Expert Fingerprint Testimony, Fed. Evid