Fingerprint evidence is admissible under Daubert standard

Law Reporter, May 2002

United States v. Plaza, - F. Supp. 2d _, Nos. Cr. 98-- 362-10, 98-362-11, 98-362-12, 2002 WL 389163 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13,2002).

A U.S. district court held that evidence gathered through the use of a common fingerprint identification technique is admissible because of the general acceptance it has achieved among fingerprint experts.

Here, defendants in a criminal case moved to preclude fingerprint evidence against them. The court decided that the evidence was admissible only if the fingerprint identification technique the prosecution was seeking to use met the standards required by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), 36 ATLA L. Rep. 212 (Aug. 1993). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a scientific technique should be evaluated with respect to four factors: (1) whether it can be and has been tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) the known or potential rate of error, and (4) its general acceptance.

The court initially held that the expected testimony of five fingerprint experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was inadmissible because the theory behind the identification technique had not been tested or subjected to scientific peer review. 179 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2002). But the court reversed itself two months later.

The court found that fingerprint experts and examiners have generally accepted the fingerprint technique at issue here, known as "ACE-V." This acceptance should not be discounted merely because fingerprint specialists have technical knowledge rather than scientific knowledge. Many other types of experts relied on by courts-such as accountants, vocational experts, accident reconstruction specialists, and appraisers of land or art-also rely on technical knowledge.

Defense counsel had succeeded in raising questions about the adequacy of the FBI experts' training, the court noted, But after fiu-ther review, the court found sufficient evidence of reliability to admit their testimony. The court noted that an applicant seeking to become an FBI fingerprint examiner must complete a rigorous two-year training program and then pass a three-day certifying examination. Defense counsel was not able to show that FBI examiners as a group had not attained an acceptable level of competence and was not able to present examples of erroneous identifications attributable to FBI examiners, the court added. The court concluded that the standards controlling the operations of the disputed fingerprint identification technique are adequate.

Consequently, the court denied defendants' motion to preclude and granted the prosecution's motion in limine to admit the fingerprint evidence.