Weighing Fingerprints As Forensic Evidence

Sunday Morning: After Judge Disallows Print Analysis From Trial, Experts Debate How Foolproof Fingerprints Can Be

(CBS)  As anyone who's ever read a crime novel or watched a cop show knows, there's nothing like a fingerprint to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent … except, that is, when it doesn't. Long the unquestioned standard of identification, fingerprinting is coming under fire, and some courts are taking notice. Erin Moriarty of 48 Hours has our Cover Story:

---

Fingerprints - they are a universal symbol of identity. The ridges which allow us to grasp objects form a complex mix of whorls, arches and loops, believed to be unique to each person. Not even identical twins have identical fingerprints.

Which is why fingerprint analysis plays a huge role in solving crimes.

Once a cop, now a criminology professor at the University of Maryland, Tom Mauriello says the best way to track down criminals is still the old fashioned way: dusting for prints.

"It's the most common physical evidence that we find- at a crime scene," Mauriello said. "'Cause when two objects touch each other they take on characteristics of each other. And there's always fingerprints everywhere."

Fingerprint analysis was first used in an American court to convict a killer in 1911.

Since then, as any fan of "CSI" knows, criminal investigation has become a lot more high-tech. After almost a century, fingerprint analysis remains a widely-accepted forensic tool.

But that may be about to change.

"Without question, fingerprint evidence is considered to be, by juries, actual evidence of guilt, incontrovertible evidence of guilt. And, unfortunately, the reality is far different than that," says attorney and forensic expert Patrick Kent.

Kent, who's with the Maryland Public Defender's Office, says that while DNA evidence is a science, fingerprint analysis is basically an art.

"It's never been tested," he said. "It's never been shown to be accurate. They don't even have a standard way that they do fingerprint comparisons."

"Are you saying fingerprint evidence shouldn't be allowed?" Moriarty asked.

"My answer, unequivocally, is that it should not," Kent said.

And in a decision last fall that shocked lawyers across the country, a judge in Maryland agreed. She threw out the fingerprint evidence tying the defendant Brian Keith Rose to murder.

Glen Langenburg, a fingerprint examiner with the Minnesota State Crime lab, says the jury in that case was actually being denied very valuable evidence.

"I'm not saying that it is foolproof," Langenburg said, "and is that the standard, that in order to use evidence in court it must be perfect? I mean the irony is, eyewitness testimony gets in every time. I mean, no one ever challenges eyewitness testimony."

The judge's decision in the Rose case could jeopardize thousands of criminal investigations nationwide.

"She called fingerprint evidence 'a subjective, untested, unverifiable identification procedure.' How do you respond to that?" asked Tom Bush of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "I don't believe there's evidence to support that type of decision."

Tom Bush runs the FBI's West Virginia complex which processes as many as 140 thousand fingerprints a day. He says the department has been using prints to catch criminals for more than 80 years, which means a lot of bad guys (and their fingers) have left a lasting impression, like Al Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd and George "Machine Gun" Kelly.

Today, with the automated fingerprint I.D. system which stores tens of millions of prints from criminal arrests and employment background checks, analysis can take just minutes. Police from around the country can contact the system and get a response in just hours.

And how reliable is this system?

"We believe our system to be in the high 98-percentile accurate," Bush said.

But if fingerprint analysis is so accurate, why did the Baltimore County judge in the Brian Rose case refuse to allow it as evidence? Because of what happened to another man in Portland, Oregon.

On May 6, 2004, FBI agents came to Mona Mayfield's home with a search warrant.

"They sat at the kitchen table and the gentleman opened up his briefcase and he said, 'This bag was found in the van, 20 minutes away from the Madrid Spain bombing,"' Mayfield said. "'And your husband's fingerprint was on it.'"

"It was surreal. It was just surreal. My first impression, 'No way. There's gotta be a mistake.'"

Just two months earlier, terrorists had bombed four commuter trains in Madrid, killing almost 200 people. An international investigation led to Brandon Mayfield, Mona's husband, an American lawyer who converted to Islam. Mayfield was arrested after a smudged partial print, found on a bag of detonators, was matched to his - not by one FBI examiner, but three.

"I honestly felt that I was being framed," Brandon Mayfield said, "because I hadn't been out of the country for ten years."

Mayfield, an Army veteran, had no criminal record and no ties to terrorist groups. His lawyer brought in an independent examiner with the hope of clearing his name.

That person, as well, told Mayfield, "It's your fingerprint."

"That was a very dark day for me, to say the least. I'd probably been in jail in lockdown for over two weeks. I was tired. I was just being worn thin."

Mayfield's family was in a quasi-lockdown as well. Mona said people were thinking she was married to a terrorist. "I didn't want to let my kids out of the house," she said. "I didn't want to send them to school. I was afraid for their safety."

Two weeks after Mayfield's arrest, Spanish investigators found the man to whom the fingerprint really belonged.

And if Spanish police hadn’t found the real source of that print, where would Brandon Mayfield likely be today? According to Patrick Kent,"There's no question that Mr. Mayfield would be sentenced either to life or sentenced to death. No question."

[nonayabiness]

If they throw the fingerprints evidence out, would they have to release all the prisoners convicted by fingerprint evidence?

[ayr2]

Fingerprinting remains one of the most important crime prevention and detection tools available to us.

However a lack of international standards and monitoring opens it to challenges of being unscientific.

To many minds a fingerprint found at a crime scene is still seen as infallible proof of guilt. Recent cases across the world have proved otherwise.

See www.shirleymckie.com

[twogunsono1g]

I believe fingerprints are like snow flakes, they say no two flakes have ever been identical. Well, you can not know that for sure unless you have looked at every flake that has ever fallen. The same thing goes for fingerprints somebody somewhere living or dead may have the same print as someone else.

two guns son of one gun

[curious51]

Fingerprints?
In my son''s questionable death, the police didn''t bother to remove the chain he was found dead in. They didn''t bother to take the chain to Autopsy for possible latent prints, they did NOT investigate, citing, "We don''t begin an investigation until something suspicious is found."
www.realcrimes.com/Robinson/Robinson.htm The highlighted areas are excerpts from the files, including a crime scene photo. Warning: Graphic!
www.JusticeForUs.org, Internet Links, #558723957

[cyberus-2009]

---
A few responses to posters:
1) There is no ''''point'''' minimum for fingerprint ID
2) In any human endeavor there are mistakes - their presence doesn''''t invalidate all human endeavors.
3) Fingerprints are incredibly unique under magnification, the extent of which most people don''''t realize.
4) Critics of the fingerprint discipline mostly have other agendas than the truth - that the practice is very accurate and reliable when done correctly by competent analysts.
5) There is a lot of information on the practice, and there is are excellent professional communities devoted to the truths behind fingerprint analysis... those interested in the discipline should interact with appropriate organizations or communities and refrain from mis-informed attacks of a reliable discipline.

Posted by clpex-com
----
Some very good points ... points which I think bring to light how fingerprint ID needs to be looked at carefully with reform in mind.
Things like:
*a minimum point match standard
* fingerprint collection standards
*examiner standards including disclosure of who the examiner is working for.
*and lastly standards for allowable enhancement procedures to prevent future abuses given how easily a computer enhancement could be tweaked

[commentator8]

It seems absolute proof is very difficult to obtain.
The accuracy of fingerprint identification has been questioned for many years. The case of mis-identification mentioned is only one of many to be found. The accuracy of DNA analysis is questionable as witness the problems with so many crime labs around the country. Eyewitness testimony has been demonstrated to be often inaccurate, especially long after the fact. Photographic evidence can be easily altered with programs like Photoshop. Even video evidence is now in question as it can be manipulated by the same means used to create modern animated movies. Supposedly even live broadcasts can be altered in real time given sufficient computing power! Once again we must return to the concepts of "the preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[pfd572]

JEGibbons: Your facts are incorrect. There is no standard for fingerprint evidence. The only reason Mr. Mayfield didn''t go to jail was because another suspect was identified by SPAIN. If they had not done their job better than the FBI did, Mr. Mayfield would have been wrongly convicted as a terrorist and his family ruined. Any protection of peoples rights, benefits us all. If he could be a victim, so easily could you, too. Don'' be too naive to assume you could never be in a similar position, it happens much too often. How many people have to be cleared by new, Real science, before people who believe as you do will finally accept that there are mistakes made by the justice system all the time. Finger print analysis is NOT a science, by the way, its a subjective examination. "It is better from 10 guilty men to go free, then for one innocent man to go to jail" (slightly paraphrased)

[pfd572]

There is NO standard for the number of matching points to determine if a print matches a suspect. Its subjective by the examiner and each jurisdiction accepts a different standard. Some cases are presented and used for conviction on as little as a 4 point match. Do you realize how many people could be included in one 4 point match? Its reported it would be thousands. Any subjective science is flawed; as is any identification that involves human inspection or identification. If DNA has cleared people, ask yourself how many of these people were convicted on finger prints evidence in the first place? Fingerprinting should be a support to other compelling evidence, not the ''smoking gun'' in any trial.

[raskal_2]

Finger print data is subjective, and one of the problems I have with bio-metrics. Two closely related individuals may have simular prints at greater than 6 points hence an error. Just use DNA closer look

[clpex-com]

A few responses to posters:
1) There is no ''point'' minimum for fingerprint ID
2) In any human endeavor there are mistakes - their presence doesn''t invalidate all human endeavors.
3) Fingerprints are incredibly unique under magnification, the extent of which most people don''t realize.
4) Critics of the fingerprint discipline mostly have other agendas than the truth - that the practice is very accurate and reliable when done correctly by competent analysts.
5) There is a lot of information on the practice, and there is are excellent professional communities devoted to the truths behind fingerprint analysis... those interested in the discipline should interact with appropriate organizations or communities and refrain from mis-informed attacks of a reliable discipline.

[clpex-com]

A few clarifications to some posts:
1) there is no ''point'' minimum for fingerprint matches.
2) latent print matches, such as in Mayfield and Rose, always require a human examiner and cannot be made only by computer.
3) in any endeavor, humans can make mistakes - but that doesn''t make all endeavors invalid.
4) fingerprints are incredibly unique - most people don''t realize how unique skin is under magnification. It is people who aren''t familiar with that uniqueness that are attacking the practice. Or people with another agenda than the truth.
5) fingerprinting and identification is here to stay regardless of what critics may say. And critics come in many forms - from judges to sociologists to the well-intending but misinformed public.
6) if you are truly interested in fingerprint uniqueness or latent print issues, there is a great online community devoted to accurate facts on the subject.

[jegibbons]

" ...a partial, distorted print," This story is a typical CBS INFLAMMATORY inference. Fingerprint evidence is here to stay. This guy did not get convicted nor did he go to jail. He was questioned. The judge decided correctly the evidence in that case was not compelling. We cannot conclude from this one case that all fingerprint evidence is corrupt.
The various data in fingerprint can be interpreted by a computer. I beliene there must be thirteen IDENTICAL matches for it to be used in court. That hardly means mistakes are never possible, but they are extremely UNLIKELY!

[psk123-2009]

When they are desparate to make the case, they will make the evidence fit how ever and which ever way they can. Sometimes they have the right person, sometimes they don''t. It is when they don''t that it becomes the most scary of all.

[kommandbunke]

All Muslims should be fingerprinted and deported to the Eastern Sand Lands.

[sistatee-2009]

I was "fingerprinted" by a $50,000. laser scanner at the county sheriff''s office, and the "prints" sent to the FBI as part of the process for obtaining a concealed pistol license. After six weeks the FBI said they couldn''t read the prints. I was then printed by the old roll-the-fingers-in-the-ink process and the prints resent to the FBI. Another month passed before they reported they couldn''t read those either. Finally they just did an NCIC file check on me using name, race and date of birth. Finding no criminal history on me I was issued the permit. The FBI is one screwed up agency.

[hepus]

Need help with same situation. Case completed life sentence handed down last month. Its just unfair the errors made by the military, jury by the military, judge by the military. Please help us.