But many scientists would not agree that the modeling assumptions made above can be verified to hold so precisely that the match probabilities can be ascertained to an order of 1 in a billion. Bickel s arguments about error rate estimation in DNA analysis apply equally well to our discussion of fingerprinting. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals released their findings in the Daubert hearing of the U.S. v. Mitchell case, holding that fingerprinting meets the necessary criteria for admissibility as evidence. This is the correct decision. Fingerprinting is an established science, subjected to peer review and publication, with general acceptance and standards for its practice.
Error rates are difficult to measure, precisely because they are so low.
So I am pleased with the outcome. I m saddened, however, that the government s case had to rest on such shoddy science. I d certainly prefer to see good law resulting from good science. We must strive to do better.