Opinion ID: 3014242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Daubert

Text: Declaration of Judicial Notice . . . 45 Factors to Government’s 2 A. Appropriateness of Judicial the application of the various Daubert Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 factors to the prosecution’s expert testimony. We conclude that the testimony B. Harmless Error Analysis . . . . . 47 passes Daubert muster, and that there are “good grounds,” id. at 590, for its admission. In a related matter, we must VI. Withholding of the NIJ decide whether the District Court properly Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 took judicial notice that “human friction A. Standard of Review ridges are unique and permanent and Applicable Law . . . . . . . . 49 throughout the area of the friction ridge skin, including small friction ridge areas, B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 and that . . . human friction ridge skin arrangements are unique and permanent.” App. 1472a. We conclude that the District VII. Admission of Alleged Court erred in taking judicial notice, but Prior Consistent Statements . . . . . 53 that the error was harmless. We also consider Mitchell’s contention VIII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 that the District Court erroneously excluded from trial significant portions of his proffered expert testimony on the APPENDIX: Colloquies with the unre liability of late nt fin gerp rint District Court Regarding identification. Portions of the colloquies Admissibility of Mitchell’s between the Court and counsel are less Proposed Experts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 than pellucid, but we are satisfied that what the Court really did was to operate on a three-tier theory of what expert BECKER, Circuit Judge. testimony was admissible: allowing (1) specific criticisms and (2) general
reliability criticisms, but excluding (3) This appeal by Byron Mitchell from a testimony about whether latent fingerprint judgment in a criminal case raises identification is a “science.” Within that important questions concerning the framework, the exclusion of evidence that admissib ility of latent fingerprint latent fingerprint identification is a science identification evidence under Fed. R. Evid. was proper under Kumho Tire Co. v. 702. We adjudicate on the basis of a Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). voluminous record developed at a Daubert The final fingerprint-related issue hearing, see Daubert v. Merrell Dow concerns the putative withholding by the Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 government of a Department of Justice (1993), and explore in considerable detail solicitation for research proposals directed 3 at validating the reliability of latent First Trial and Appeal f i n ge r p r int i d e n t if i c a ti o n . T h is This case began in 1991 when two solicitation, Mitchell contends, was not men with handguns robbed an armored only improperly and intentionally withheld car employee of approximately $20,000 by the government in violation of its as he entered a check cashing agency at obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 29th Street and Girard Avenue in North U.S. 83 (1963), but would have been Philadelphia. The robbers then got into a powerful evidence, not only substantively beige car driven by a third person, but also to impeach the government’s engaging in gunfire with the armored car expert witnesses who testified that latent employees as they fled. The beige car, fingerprint identification was a well- which had been stolen about an hour established discipline with a strong and beforehand, was abandoned by the well-verified foundation. The District robbers roughly a mile from the agency. Court concluded that the solicitation was The government sought to prove at trial not material under the “reasonable that the robbers were William Robinson probability of a different outcome” (a/k/a “Bookie”) and Terrence Stewart standard of Brady and its progeny. We (a/k/a “T”), and that the getaway driver agree. was Mitchell. According to the The remaining issue on appeal is government, the robbery had a fourth whether plain error was committed by the participant, Kim Chester, who knew of admission of testimony that a key the plans, helped case the robbery site, government witness gave a statement to and assisted the others in spending the the FBI and testified at a prior proceeding. proceeds of the robbery. Chester Mitchell characterizes the admission of testified for the prosecution at Mitchell’s this evidence as improper under the trial as an uncharged accomplice. Both hearsay rules, Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802. We Robinson and Stewart died before trial, conclude that testimony about the and thus Mitchell was the sole defendant. existence of a statement is not itself a Mitchell was charged with conspiracy “statement”; that the testimony was not to commit and commission of Hobbs Act “offered . . . to prove the truth of the robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and use of matter asserted,” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), and and carrying a firearm during a crime of thus not inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In the first 802; and that, at all events, the plain error trial, at which Mitchell was convicted of standard is not met. We will therefore all counts, the government introduced affirm the judgment. into evidence an anonymous note that had been left in the front seat of the abandoned beige car, apparently written
by someone who observed the robbers A. The Offense and Mitchell’s exiting the beige car and getting into a 4 different car. The note read, “Light 1. The Field of Latent green ZPJ-254. They changed cars; this Fingerprint Identification is the other car.” On appeal, we held the Criminals generally do not leave note to be inadmissible hearsay not behind full fingerprints on clean, flat subject to any exception in Fed. R. Evid. surfaces. Rather, they leave fragments 803. United States v. Mitchell, 145 F.3d that are often distorted or marred by 572 (3d Cir. 1998). In view of the artifacts, terms we explain in the limited other evidence connecting margin.1 These “latent” prints—from the Mitchell to the robbery—Chester’s Latin lateo, “to lie hidden,” because they testimony was questionable, no robbery are often not visible to the naked eye proceeds were ever linked to Mitchell, until dusted or otherwise revealed— are and the fingerprints recovered from the the typical grist for the fingerprint beige getaway car were identified as identification expert’s mill. Testimony at Mitchell’s but in poor condition—we the Daubert hearing suggested that the concluded that admission of the typical latent print is a fraction—perhaps anonymous note was not harmless error. 1/5th— of the size of a full fingerprint. Id. at 579-80. Accordingly, we vacated App. 435a-436a. A “full” fingerprint is Mitchell’s conviction and remanded for a familiar to anyone who has been new trial. Id. fingerprinted for identification or law B. Latent Fingerprint Identification enforcement reasons: It is the print made and the Daubert Hearing by rolling the full surface of the fingertip onto a fingerprint card or electronic Prior to the retrial, the District Court fingerprint capture device. (These prints conducted a lengthy Daubert hearing on are, for obvious reasons, also referred to the admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702 as “rolled prints” or “full-rolled prints.”) of the government’s expert testimony A full set of full-rolled fingerprints on a (and Mitchell’s counter-experts) on the card—as would be taken during a police identification of fingerprints found on booking, for example—is known as a the gear shift lever and driver’s side door “ten-print card.” Ten-print cards usually of the beige getaway car. This hearing also have space at the bottom of the card was to adjudicate a major attack mounted by Mitchell on the government’s fingerprint evidence. As with any expert 1 In the jargon, artifacts are generally testimony, some background in the field small amounts of dirt or grease that and an introduction to the jargon is masquerade as parts of the ridge helpful, and so we discuss the field of impressions seen in a fingerprint, while latent fingerprint identification in general distortions are produced by smudging or before turning to the particulars of the too much pressure in making the print, Daubert hearing. which tends to flatten the ridges on the finger and obscure their detail. 5 for “flat impressions” or “plain where ridges terminate or bifurcate are impressions,” where all four fingers of often referred to as “Galton points,” the hand are pressed at once onto the whose eponym, Sir Francis Galton, first card without rolling. developed a taxonomy for these points. The typical human fingerprint has Rolled prints and latent prints alike somewhere between 75 and 175 such are subject to artifacts and distortions, ridge characteristics. Level 3 detail though the problems with latent prints focuses on microscopic variations in the are more acute because they are smaller, ridges themselves, such as the slight and left more carelessly than full-rolled meanders of the ridges (the “ridge path”) prints, and are left on surfaces that many and the locations of sweat pores. This is other fingers have also touched. the level of detail most likely to be Appellant Br. at 10-11. See Andre obscured by distortions. Moenssens et al., Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases, § 8.08 at 514 The FBI—the agency that made the (4th ed. 1995) (“Many latent impressions primary identification in this case—uses developed at crime scenes are badly an identification method known as ACEblurred or smudged, or consist of V, an acronym for “analysis, comparison, partially superimposed impressions of evaluation, and verification.” The basic different fingers.”). steps taken by an examiner under this protocol are first to winnow the field of Fingerprints are left by the depositing candidate matching prints by using Level of oil upon contact between a surface and 1 detail to classify the latent print. Next, the friction ridges of fingers. The field the examiner will analyze the latent print uses the broader term “friction ridge” to to identify Level 2 detail (i.e., Galton designate skin surfaces with ridges points and their spatial relationship to evolutionarily adapted to produce one another), along with any Level 3 increased friction (as compared to detail that can be gleaned from the print. smooth skin) for gripping. Thus toeprint The examiner then compares this to the or handprint analysis is much the same as Level 2 and Level 3 detail of a candidate fingerprint analysis. The structure of full-rolled print (sometimes taken from a friction ridges is described in the record database of fingerprints, sometimes taken before us at three levels of increasing from a suspect in custody), and evaluates detail, designated as Level 1, Level 2 and whether there is sufficient similarity to Level 3. Level 1 detail is visible with the declare a match. In the final step, the naked eye; it is the familiar pattern of match is independently verified by loops, arches, and whorls. Level 2 detail another examiner, though there is some involves “ridge characteristics”—the dispute about how truly independent this patterns of islands, dots, and forks verification is. formed by the ridges as they begin and end and join and divide. The points The standards used by the FBI at the 6 evaluation stage of the ACE-V protocol has the advantage of allowing an are somewhat less concrete than the examiner to find a match in situations numerical descriptions found in where an examiner using a strict pointtelevision police dramas that extol based standard would not find one, this “twenty-point matches” and the like. An flexibility comes at the price of n-point match refers to a match between substituting a degree of subjectivity for an unknown latent print and a known full an objective numerical standard. print in which the examiner has 2. The Daubert Hearing identified n corresponding Galton points in the correct geometry relative to one The District Court held a five-day another. A number of jurisdictions both hearing pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell outside the United States and within Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. seem to rely on a system where a 579 (1993), to rule on the admissibility minimum number of corresponding of the government’s and M itchell’s points must be found before a match may proposed expert testimony. The record be declared, irrespective of Level 3 of this marathon hearing alone comprises detail. See, e.g., 2 Paul C. Giannelli & nearly one thousand pages of testimony Edward Imwinkelried, Scientific and a similarly voluminous array of Evidence § 16-7(A), at 768 (3d ed. 1999) exhibits. The government called six (“In France, the required number [of witnesses (plus one rebuttal witness), and points for a match] used most often is 24 Mitchell, four. The District Court found while the number is 30 in Argentina and all the offered expert witnesses to be Brazil.”). Such jurisdictions are said to qualified in their respective fields, and use a “point system.” On the other hand, neither party raises a challenge to the Canada does not have a minimum point qualifications, as such, of the witnesses. threshold for identification, and the Rather, both sides’ issues lie with the United Kingdom recently eliminated a content of the testimony accepted by the minimum point threshold. See United District Court. We briefly describe the States v. Llera Plaza, 188 F. Supp. 2d areas of testimony of each of the 549, 569-70 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (quoting witnesses, starting with the government’s Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s colloquy witnesses. with Lord Rooker). The alternative
approach—which gained favor with the FBI in the late 1940s, App. 378a— is to Steven Meagher, an FBI special use a combination of quantity and agent, testified at the hearing about Level quality: If ridge characteristics are 1, Level 2, and Level 3 detail (as abundant, then the quality of Level 3 described above), and other aspects of detail is unimportant; but a paucity of fingerprint identification. With regard to Galton points can be compensated for by the FBI’s practices, technology, and high-quality Level 3 detail. While this operations, he testified about the ACE-V 7 protocol; that the FBI does not rely on a cellular bases for the permanence of minimum “points” standard for matching friction ridge arrangements. Ed German, fingerprints (and why it does not); and of the United States Army Criminal about the Automated Fingerprint Investigation Laboratory, testified to the Identification System (“AFIS”) computer lack of similarity found between system (which automates some corresponding fingerprints of identical preliminary aspects of fingerprint twins, a conclusion established by his matching). Meagher also described a own research on identical twins and survey (which we discuss, infra) of state confirmed by other studies of identical fingerprint identification agencies that he twins. prepared and circulated for the purpose The government also offered David of demonstrating that the fingerprint Ashbaugh, of the Royal Canadian match in this case was, by wide Mounted Police, who testified broadly consensus, correct. He also described an about the development, comparison, and experiment (which we also discuss, identification of friction ridge skin and infra) designed and run in cooperation impressions. Like the other government with the contractor for the FBI’s AFIS witnesses who were examined on the computer system, Lockheed Martin, that matter (viz., Agent German, Agent would search a portion of the AFIS Meagher, and Dr. Budowle) he database for identical fingerprints. responded that it was his opinion that Donald Zeisig, of Lockheed Martin, and friction ridge arrangements were unique Bruce Budowle, a statistician and (the “uniqueness proposition”) and population geneticist with the FBI, were permanent (the “permanence also involved in this experiment, and proposition”), and that positive both testified at the Daubert hearing. identifications can be made from Zeisig also testified in greater detail fingerprints containing sufficient about the technical background of the quantity and quality of ridge detail. Dr. AFIS computer system. Babler also opined that friction ridge The government offered two arrangements are unique and permanent. witnesses focusing principally on the These propositions were the foundation biological aspects of fingerprints. Dr. of the government’s argument that latent William Babler, of Marquette University, fingerprint identification evidence testified about the prenatal development satisfies Daubert. of friction ridges, opining that unique The government conducted two arrangements of friction ridges develop experiments in anticipation of the in the womb within a matter of months Daubert hearing: (1) a survey of state after conception. He also testified to the fingerprint identification agencies asking medical community’s accepted them, inter alia, if they could match the understanding of the anatomical and latent prints in this case to Mitchell’s ten- 8 print card; and (2) a search for identical Part B of the survey was designed as fingerprints using data in the AFIS a demonstration of the ACE-V computer system.2 The specifics of these identification protocol, and it used the experiments bear on their relevance as latent fingerprints at issue in this case. expert evidence, and so we describe them Part B offered each agency photographs in some detail. of the two latent prints and of Mitchell’s ten-print card. Agencies were asked first For purposes of this case, Meagher to attempt to identify the ten-print card created a survey packet that was sent out using their own computerized fingerprint to the principal law enforcement agency database. It is common practice (for of each of the fifty states, plus the efficiency’s sake) to “filter” the database District of Columbia, Canada’s Royal in making an identification, by Canadian Mounted Police, and the considering only the subset of records United Kingdom’s Scotland Yard. The (by race, sex, date of birth, etc.) that are survey contained three parts: Part A likely to result in a match. Meagher involved questions about whether the requested that agencies not filter their agency currently accepts fingerprints as a database for this test, to ensure that the means to individualize (i.e., make an prints were compared against the identification), and about whether the maximum possible number of print agency regards fingerprints as unique records. Of the forty-seven agencies that and permanent. All fifty-three recipients responded, the only match that was found responded in the affirmative to both was in Pennsylvania, where Mitchell’s queries. Joint Supp. App. at 56. Part C ten-print record was already on file. inquired whether the agencies had ever found two individuals to have the same In the second segment of Part B, fingerprint; the response was, agencies were asked to attempt to match unanimously, no. Part C also revealed the latent prints to their existing records. that, in the aggregate, the ten-print The only “hits” were made by the two records of nearly 70 million agencies (Mississippi and South Dakota) individuals—or about 700 million that inputted the ten-print card supplied fingerprints—have been examined by Meagher into their system prior to during the course of the agencies’ running the search (and thus raised the operations. likelihood of a match). Pennsylvania was unable to run this search because of equipment troubles, but represented that 2 We note that these experiments—and, it undoubtedly would have made a match indeed, much of the expertise marshaled if its system were fully operative. both by the government and by The third segment of Part B asked Mitchell—required resources and agencies to perform manual comparisons preparation that are far from typical in of the latent prints to the ten-print card federal criminal trials. 9 provided to them. This survey was than M itchell; and in the third segment, single-blind, i.e., while Meagher knew no agency matched a latent print to any that the latent prints had been identified finger other than the one to which the as Mitchell’s, knew that the ten-print FBI had matched the latent print. card was Mitchell’s, and believed the The second experiment conducted by latents could be matched to the ten-print the government’s experts was known as card, none of the survey recipients was the “50/50” experiment. This was an told any of this. Roughly two thirds of empirical examination by computer of a the agencies responded to this portion. subset of the FBI’s fingerprint records to Over three quarters of the responding search for pairs of very similar agencies matched both prints consistently fingerprints taken from different sources. with the FBI’s identification. Of those Finding such a pair would undermine the that did not match both prints, half uniqueness proposition, see supra page matched only one print consistent with 8, that the government’s other experts the FBI’s identification, and half testified was well-established. The matched neither print. In followup experiment data set was a set of fifty communications, the FBI either thousand prints (out of about 340 million convinced these non-identifying agencies in the FBI’s AFIS computer system). that a match did exist and they so Rather than select these fifty thousand acknowledged (though it took the strong prints at random, the experimenters suggestion of annotated blown-up (Agent Meagher, Mr. Zeisig, and Dr. photographs of the prints), or otherwise Budowle) took them from the subset of established reasons for the non- prints that were from white males and identification (e.g., the examiner deemed exhibited a left-sloped whorl pattern at the quality of the supplied photographs to Level 1 detail. The experimenters also be too poor to make an identification, ensured that multiple prints from the and would have preferred an original; or same person were included in the set of the comparison was performed by an fifty thousand. The effect of these inexperienced examiner, and on review, restrictions was to bias, from the outset, a senior examiner was able to find a the prints toward being more similar (and match). hence more likely to contain a matching A critical summary point is that no pair).3 agency ever registered a “false” positive (i.e., a positive match that contradicted 3 the FBI’s result): In the first segment of An analogy may illustrate this biasing Part B, no agency matched Mitchell’s effect: Consider a large multicolored pile ten-print card to someone else’s ten-print of crayons produced by mixing several card; in the second segment, no agency boxes of crayons. If one chooses a dozen matched the latent prints to anyone other “dark” crayons at random, one is more likely to find among those dozen crayons 10 In the first part of the test, a computer the world other than the person who program—using the same algorithms as deposited the print at approximately one the FBI’s AFIS computer system uses to in ten to the eighty-sixth power (i.e., 1 match prints—attempted to match each chance in 1 followed by 86 zeroes), a of the fifty thousand prints against the very low probability indeed. full set of fifty thousand prints (hence the Apparently recognizing that analysis moniker “50/50”). Thus, a total of of full-rolled prints was not particularly 50,000 x 50,000, or 2.5 billion, germane to the question of the comparisons were performed. For each identification of latent partial prints, the print, the best match was, by an government’s witnesses conducted a enormous margin, itself.4 Based on second experiment. From each of the statistical extrapolation from these fifty thousand prints, they had the results, the experimenters put the chances computer create a simulated latent print of a single full-rolled print matching (referred to as a “pseudolatent print” or another full-rolled print from anyone in simply a “pseudolatent”), as might be recovered from a crime scene, by taking a pair of exactly the same color than one only about a fifth of the full-rolled print.5 is to find such a pair if one selects a They then ran a similar fifty thousanddozen crayons at random from the pile at by-fifty thousand comparison to see how large. strongly the pseudolatent prints matched full prints from which they had not been 4 We note that the comparisons were derived. With one exception which we run for each print against all 50,000 identify in the margin, each pseudolatent prints, not against the other 49,999 was a strong match with the full print prints. Thus, every print was assured of from which it had been derived, by a having a tautologically perfect match wide margin over any other full print. 6 (i.e., itself) that could serve as a baseline for statistical comparisons. This was done to quantify statistically how much 5 The pseudolatents were 21.7% of the better the perfect match was than all areal size of the full print, a figure which other comparisons. The cases in which a Meagher determined was the average print was a strong match for a print other size of a set of actual latent prints that he than itself were subsequently discovered had previously used for testing. to be the product of a double-entry in the 6 database (i.e., a set of prints from the Meagher explained that the sole same person had been entered into the exception was caused by a poorly created database twice). The experimenters fingerprint card. On the card in question, testified that the system’s ability to catch the flat impression had strayed out of the this unintentional duplication bolstered region on the card designated for the flat their confidence in its capabilities. impression, and had left part of a print in 11 Statistical computations based on this described which agencies adhered to a experiment put the probability of a latent point system, how many points they partial print matching the full print of required to make an identification, and anyone in the world other than the person noted that the agencies that did not find a who deposited the print at approximately match generally reported that they had one in ten to the sixteenth power (i.e., 1 found an insufficient number of points of in 10,000,000,000,000,000), also a very similarity between the latent print and the low probability. ten-print card. Ms. Peterman also reported on the varying levels of
experience and accreditation of the Mitchell’s first witness at the examiners who performed the Daubert hearing was Marilyn Peterman, comparisons for the agencies. an investigator with the Defender The first of Mitchell’s three major Association of Philadelphia who took experts was Dr. David Stoney, the statements from those fingerprint director of the McCrone Research examiners at state agencies who had Institute in Chicago, a not-for-profit failed to match the latent prints to organization engaged in teaching and Mitchell’s ten-print card in completing research in the forensic sciences. Dr. Part B of the FBI’s survey. 7 She Stoney was, in Mitchell’s counsel’s words at the Daubert hearing, offered as the box designated for one of the rolled an expert “with respect to whether a impressions. Consequently, one of the fingerprint examiner’s conclusion that a boxes for a rolled print actually latent fingerprint came from a particular contained a rolled print, plus a fair-sized individual is a scientific determination.” piece of a flat print of a different finger. App. 763a. The nucleus of Dr. Stoney’s As a result, the strong match found by opinion is summarized in a portion of his computer was actually a match between testimony at the hearing: the pseudolatent print and the stray The determination that a portion of the flat print. As with the fingerprint examiner . . . makes database error discovered in the first when comparing a latent stage of the 50/50 experiment, the fingerprint with a known experimenters found this mistaken match fingerprint, specifically the to be evidence of the robustness of their determination that there is computer system. sufficient basis for an absolute 7 identification, is not a scientific It appears that, in the interest of efficiency, the parties consented to introducing hearsay from the examiners who completed the FBI Meagher for the government, and survey—primarily through Agent through M s. Peterman for Mitchell. 12 determination. . . . It is a that it is wrong.” App. 781a. subjective determination Dr. Stoney also criticized the 50/50 without objective standards to experiment. He noted first the it. undisputed proposition that two Now, by “subjective” I mean impressions of the same friction ridges that it is one that is dependent on will not be identical—artifacts and the individual’s expertise, distortions will invariably appear.8 In training, and the consensus of that experiment, see supra page 10 and their agreement of other note 4, a fingerprint was compared individuals in the field. By “not against itself and 49,999 other scientific” I mean that there is not fingerprints taken from the FBI’s an objective standard that has database. Hence, Dr. Stoney explained, been tested; nor is there a the simulated task modeled by the 50/50 subjective process that has been experiment was that of matching Print 1 objectively tested. It is the and (the identical) Print 1 of Finger A. essential feature of a scientific In his submission, the task in real-world process that there be something to fingerprint identification is one of test, that when that something is matching Print 1 and Print 2 of Finger A. tested, the test is capable of Thus, Stoney reasoned, the 50/50 showing it to be false. experiment as executed assessed how much better a match is found between App. 765a. Dr. Stoney opined that the Print 1 and (the identical) Print 1 of evaluation phase of the ACE-V protocol Finger A than between Print 1 of Finger requires the examiner to make a binary A and Print 1 of Finger B. A more determination: Either two prints match meaningful version of the 50/50 sufficiently to make an absolute experiment, Dr. Stoney explained, would identification, or they do not. This Dr. Stoney contrasted to certain other forensic disciplines in which 8 This point also underpins Dr. intermediate determinations are Stoney’s more general criticism of the expressed in probabilistic terms. Dr. discipline of latent fingerprint Stoney further objected to any identification: Dr. Stoney agreed that characterization of fingerprint human friction ridges are unique and identification as having a “zero error permanent, including small areas, App. rate,” explaining that “something with a 914a, but suggested that this alone is zero error rate cannot be a science . . . . unhelpful on the question whether prints [I]f we start out saying fundamentally are identifiable, because fingerprints are something can’t be shown to be wrong, so subject to distortion and the forensic then it means that we can’t test it. If we identification process is so flawed, App. can’t test it, . . . there’s no way to show 917a-920a. 13 have asked how much better a match is opinion as to whether latent fingerprint found between Print 1 and Print 2 of examination meets the criteria of Finger A than between Print 1 of Finger science.” App. 813a-814a. Like Dr. A and Print 1 of Finger B.9 Stoney, Prof. Starrs testified that it was his opinion that “[the current practice of] Dr. Stoney further criticized the fingerprint comparison and analysis is method used to create the pseudolatent not predicated on a sound and adequate prints in the second part of the scientific basis for purposes of making experiment. Dr. Stoney explained that it an individualization to one person from a was established in the literature that fragmentary print to the exclusion of all simple masking, and even computer- other persons in the world.” App. 828a. generated blurring, of full prints cannot adequately simulate real latent partial To support his conclusion, Prof. prints. Dr. Stoney’s ultimate conclusion Starrs highlighted five aspects of was that these experimental defects fingerprint examination that in his rendered the probabilities derived by the opinion were inconsistent with a government experts meaningless. scientific discipline: (1) claims to “absolute certainty”; (2) “the failure to The defense’s second principal expert carry out controlled empirical-data- was James Starrs, a professor in the searching experimentation”; (3) a failure Department of Forensic Sciences and the to engage in error-rate analysis; (4) the law school at George Washington lack of uniformity, objectivity, University. Prof. Starrs has had a long systematization, and standards; (5) “a career at the intersection of law and failure to show a due regard to a forensic science; indeed, an article by vigorous and uncompromising Prof. Starrs was cited by the Supreme skepticism.” App. 828a-829a. In Court in Daubert. See Daubert, 509 U.S. elaborating on each of these points, Prof. at 591 (citing James E. Starrs, Frye v. Starrs gave illustrations. For example, he United States Restructured and briefly described a case of false Revitalized: A Proposal to Amend identification; he described some of the Federal Evidence Rule 702, 26 subtle and non-systematized aspects of Jurimetrics J. 249, 258 (1986)). Prof. analyzing Galton points, see supra page Starrs was offered as an “exert [sic] in 6, and he criticized some aspects of the forensic science qualified to provide an training of new fingerprint examiners. Prof. Starrs also explained that he viewed the government’s testimony and 9 We note, however, that such an experiments involving full-rolled prints experiment was beyond the immediate as irrelevant to the question of latent capability of the government because its partial print identification. However, database, by design, does not have under cross-examination Prof. Starrs was multiple prints from the same finger. 14 agnostic on whether the propositions he group, a notable difference, Dr. Cole challenged as unproven might, in the explained, between fingerprint end, be scientifically supportable. identification and, say, psychiatric diagnosis. Dr. Cole also opined that Mitchell’s final expert at the fingerprint identification was not Daubert hearing was Simon Cole, a post- scientific because, inter alia, the doctoral fellow at Rutgers University, fingerprint identification community had with expertise in “science and technology not engaged in studies that attempt to studies with particular expertise falsify the discipline’s premises; did not regarding the fingerprint profession.” engage in anonymous, critical (as App. 939a. Dr. Cole had no experience opposed to positive) peer review; and did in latent print examination. From his not recognize error rates. research, Dr. Cole identified four explanations for the widespread c. Mitchell’s Exhibits acceptance of fingerprint identification As part of the Daubert hearing, evidence: First, from the earliest days of Mitchell also introduced several hundred the discipline, fingerprint examiners have pages of documentary exhibits, developed an “occupational norm of principally journal articles and other unanimity,” i.e., examiners would not excerpts from the corpus of literature publicly disagree with one another about criticizing the practice and theory of an identification. Second, in terms of the latent fingerprint identification, authored way in which the fingerprint examination by his experts and by others. Also community handled the instances of introduced were the results of some known misidentification, such cases fingerprint proficiency tests, which would, Dr. Cole explained, be blamed on suggested that examiners were prone to practitioner incompetence or both false negatives (i.e., declaring a misconduct.10 Third was a simple lack of nonidentification where an identification judicial scrutiny— a sort of snowball should have been made) and false effect of string citations to cases and positives (i.e., making an incorrect treatises approving fingerprint identification). App. 3014a, 3063a. identification evidence. Fourth was a Finally, the defense introduced a survey lack of an organized counter-expert of jurors that found that 93% agreed with the statement “fingerprint identification 10 is a science” and 85% agreed with the Dr. Cole noted that both of these first statement “fingerprints are the most two explanations were well illustrated by reliable means of identifying a person.” the FBI’s survey: Agent Meagher App. 3047a-3048a. followed up with each agency until a match was agreed to, or otherwise d. The Government’s Rebuttal Witness identified inexperienced examiners as the To respond to defense testimony source of nonidentifications. 15 regarding the “occupational norm of specialized knowledge. unanimity” among fingerprint examiners,