Abstract
A petitioner seeking to challenge a conviction that was based upon a fingerprint match will face difficulties, even when armed with the findings of the NAS Report. In the areas described above, CBLA and SBS, there were “insiders” who began to challenge the science underlying the forensic conclusions reached by experts in the field. The community of latent print examiners has yet yielded a William Tobin, or multiple experts such as those in the Edmunds case who testified they had changed their opinion about the scientific validity of the conclusions they had once endorsed. The committee convened by Congress to study the forensic disciplines and issue the NAS Report was a highly credentialed and impressive assembly of scientists, academics, and judges. However, the committee appears to be viewed as a group of “outsiders” by the IAI and SWGFAST, who represent the “insider” community of latent fingerprint examiners. Both organizations have publicly rebutted the findings of the NAS Report. As a result, lines will continue to be drawn between practitioners and scientists. At this time, it is too early to determine which side the courts will ultimately align themselves with after the publication of the report.
Recommended Citation
McMurtrie, Jacqueline
(2010)
"Swirls and Whorls: Litigating
Post-Conviction Claims
of Fingerprint Misidentification
After the NAS Report,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2010:
No.
2, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2010/iss2/4