Advances in Fingerprint Technology.pdf

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX Daubert Hearings EDWARD GERMAN* During most of the 20th century in America, the admissibility of friction ridge evidence in the vast majority of American courts relied upon the 1923 “Frye” rule of “general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs” (Frye v. United States, 293 F2d. 1013, D.C. Cir. 1923). So long as it could be shown that a scientific principle or discovery, such as the uniqueness and permanence of friction ridge formations, was generally accepted by other experts, it was admissible. Those few states not adopting the “Frye test” generally embraced Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (or a similar state rule) to ensure that expert testimony was relevant and based on reliable scientific theories. Beginning in 1993, however, the admissibility of friction ridge identification has come under much closer scrutiny. In 1993, a civil case (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786) ruled that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded “general acceptance” tests for admissibility of novel scientific evidence; and that the rigid “general acceptance” test, which arose from Frye v. United States, is at odds with the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Daubert ruling stated that: • The trial judge must still screen scientific evidence to ensure it is relevant and reliable. • “The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate.” • Factors the court should consider include: • Testing and validation • Peer review • Rate of error • “General acceptance” * Included with the author’s permission; originally prepared by the author and others for posting at http://onin.com/fp.
The 1999 decision Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (131 F.3d 1433, 11th Cir. 12/23/97) added additional factors for a court to consider in determining the admissibility of a scientific theory or technique. Because the Daubert ruling impacted only “expert” testimony, prosecutors had the option of avoiding its more stringent requirements by entering fingerprint evidence as “technical or other specialized knowledge.” Under Kumho, the court ruled that Daubert applies to all expert testimony, whether expert, technical, or specialized knowledge. Although Daubert/Kumho is not recognized as the standard by all American courts, it is the new yardstick by which most courts now measure the admissibility of scientific evidence. During a four and one-half day hearing in July 1999, the United States Government presented strong and extensive defense in the first Daubert hearing seriously challenging the admissibility of fingerprint evidence. The U.S. v. Byron C. Mitchell Daubert/Kumho hearing held in Philadelphia (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) was the first hearing of its kind in America in over 70 years. The government’s experts were described in court records as follows: 1 “The government introduced the testimony of two scientists, Dr. William J. Babler, an expert in the field of prenatal development of human variation, particularly friction ridges and their configurations, and Dr. Bruce Budowle, an expert in the field of genetics, genetics population, statistics, quality assurance standards, and validation of scientific methods. Dr. Babler gave an extensive presentation of his research and findings on the creation and development of the human friction ridge skin and friction ridges. Other evidence, which was presented by the government at the hearing also, supported Dr. Babler’s opinions and findings. The government also introduced the testimony of several highly qualified fingerprint experts, characterized by a defense witness, Dr. Simon A. Cole, as the “elite” in their field. Testifying at the hearing were Staff Sergeant David R. Ashbaugh of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Special Agent Edward German from the United States Army Crime Laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia; and Stephen B. Meagher, Supervisory Unit Chief in the Latent Fingerprint Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D.C. Also testifying was Donald Ziesig, an algorithmist employed at Lockheed Martin in Orlando, Florida. Ziesig is an expert in Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems, an expert in pattern recognition, and a former rocket scientist. Ziesig explained some of the aspects of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) and the 50K × 50K Fingerprint Study. In the government’s rebuttal case, the government produced the testimony of Pat Wertheim, another highly qualified fingerprint expert and rebuttal testimony from Dr. Budowle.” 1
Page 4 and 5:
Advances in Advances Fingerprint Te
Page 6 and 7:
Advances in Fingerprint Technology
Page 8 and 9:
Preface The first edition of this b
Page 10 and 11:
Acknowledgments We gratefully ackno
Page 12 and 13:
Table of Contents Preface Acknowled
Page 14 and 15:
History and Development of Fingerpr
Page 16 and 17:
Figure 1.2 Basic fingerprint patter
Page 18 and 19:
Figure 1.3 Portion of the prehensil
Page 20 and 21:
Figure 1.4 Elliptical whorl. Theory
Page 22 and 23:
The bricks, carefully laid and accu
Page 24 and 25:
the megalithic builders, including
Page 26 and 27:
made most of them. These “identif
Page 28 and 29:
Figure 1.6 Nehemiah Grew. (Drawn by
Page 30 and 31:
Figure 1.7 Right palm imprint in pl
Page 32 and 33:
By kindly words of persuasion a ref
Page 34 and 35:
Loop: Now if this oblique stripe by
Page 36 and 37:
Figure 1.11 Dr. Ivan Vucetich. (Dra
Page 38 and 39:
Sir Edward Henry and Sir William He
Page 40 and 41:
in charge he undoubtedly supported
Page 42 and 43:
1. Finding finger imprints on prehi
Page 44 and 45:
Faulds edited seven issues of a fin
Page 46 and 47:
much of his inspired research. For
Page 48 and 49:
to the unrelenting efforts of Steeg
Page 50 and 51:
and gathered around him a nucleus o
Page 52 and 53:
I find that portions of palm imprin
Page 54 and 55:
Identification of Latent Prints ROB
Page 56 and 57:
Without it, no amount of further la
Page 58 and 59:
work will quite often fare badly un
Page 60 and 61:
Figure 2.3 Polygon method. Overlay
Page 62 and 63:
Experience and Skill Although the t
Page 64 and 65:
The initial identification of the l
Page 66 and 67:
D5 D6 D7 I2 D8 D9 D10 No No No Reco
Page 68 and 69:
D11 I4 No D12 D11 I5 D12-1 D7 D12-2
Page 70 and 71:
D14 I7 D16 C3 D11 D14-2 D7 D14-3 C2
Page 72 and 73:
Figure 2.7 Example of pressure dist
Page 74 and 75:
9. Mairs, G., Novel method of print
Page 76 and 77:
DNA From Latent Prints DNA From Blo
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 3.1 A schematic diagram show
Page 80 and 81:
Figure 3.3 A schematic diagram of t
Page 82 and 83:
(5 to 12 µg/L), bromide (0.2 to 0.
Page 84 and 85:
electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) include
Page 86 and 87:
Table 3.3 Anatomical Variation in t
Page 88 and 89:
Various oxidative and bacteriologic
Page 90 and 91:
acid content can change with time i
Page 92 and 93:
are of sebaceous origin. 82 Approxi
Page 94 and 95:
Table 3.7 Changes in Surface Lipid
Page 96 and 97:
gland’s activity. The more active
Page 98 and 99:
content. 108 Palmitic acid was foun
Page 100 and 101:
Figure 3.4a A chromatogram of a fin
Page 102 and 103:
various lipid classes found in a la
Page 104 and 105:
of DNA using RFLP. 130 No adverse e
Page 106 and 107:
was later found to be caused by the
Page 108 and 109:
17. Seutter, E., Goedhart-De Groot,
Page 110 and 111:
52. Downing, D. T., Strauss, J. S.,
Page 112 and 113:
85. Summerly, R., Yardley, H. J., R
Page 114 and 115:
120. Duff, J. M. and Menzel, E. R.,
Page 116 and 117:
149. Kloosterman, A., Application o
Page 118 and 119:
Coumarin 540 Dye Staining Method An
Page 120 and 121:
visualization of latent fingerprint
Page 122 and 123:
White powder Dolomite, starch powde
Page 124 and 125:
Fluorescein solution (in methanol/w
Page 126 and 127:
Notes: Dissolve the MoS 2 in the di
Page 128 and 129:
4. Avoid inhaling any iodine fumes
Page 130 and 131:
CN CN CN A - A - CH2 C COOR CH2 C C
Page 132 and 133:
Large vacuum chambers for processin
Page 134 and 135:
Gentian Violet Solution — Non-Phe
Page 136 and 137:
Table 4.1 Approximate Absorption an
Page 138 and 139:
and recorded by autoradiography. Ni
Page 140 and 141:
Ninhydrin solutions may be applied
Page 142 and 143:
of development of ninhydrin-treated
Page 144 and 145:
and certain nonreactive surface mat
Page 146 and 147:
Procedure Xylene 50 mL Petroleum et
Page 148 and 149:
ehavior of Ruhemann’s purple-meta
Page 150 and 151:
4. Rinse the specimen in tap water.
Page 152 and 153:
een treated with ninhydrin. In addi
Page 154 and 155:
Working solution Stock solution 6 m
Page 156 and 157:
Note: Combine and stir until citric
Page 158 and 159:
Zauner 181 noted that on a rare occ
Page 160 and 161:
3. Expose the tape surface to a hig
Page 162 and 163:
lifting media were used, followed b
Page 164 and 165:
under certain circumstances. The Br
Page 166 and 167:
Physical Methods Visual Examination
Page 168 and 169:
DRY Super Glue Fuming Powder Dustin
Page 170 and 171:
Visual Examination Photography Iodi
Page 172 and 173:
References 1. Olsen, R. D., Scott
Page 174 and 175:
36. Springer, E. and Bergman, P., A
Page 176 and 177:
74. McCarthy, M. M., Evaluation of
Page 178 and 179:
110. Mooney, D. G., Development of
Page 180 and 181:
142. Pounds, C. A., Grigg, R., and
Page 182 and 183:
175. Jones, R. J. and Pounds, C. A.
Page 184 and 185:
213. Hebrard, J. and Donche, A., Fi
Page 186 and 187:
245. Misner, A., Wilkinson, D., and
Page 188 and 189:
Fingerprint Development by Ninhydri
Page 190 and 191:
Figure 5.1 2,2-Dihydroxy-1,3-indane
Page 192 and 193:
Figure 5.4 Formation of murexide (V
Page 194 and 195:
Figure 5.6 The 1,3-dipole form of t
Page 196 and 197:
less volatile 1,1,2-trichloroethane
Page 198 and 199:
Key to Routes Primary Special Secon
Page 200 and 201:
Specially designed cabinets for che
Page 202 and 203:
the importance of cooling the objec
Page 204 and 205:
Figure 5.10 Ninhydrin (I) and some
Page 206 and 207:
een prepared and evaluated as finge
Page 208 and 209:
Figure 5.14 The red pigment formed
Page 210 and 211:
Figure 5.16 The fluorescent product
Page 212 and 213:
16. Pounds, C.A. and Jones, R.J., P
Page 214 and 215:
51. Jungbluth, W.O., Replacement fo
Page 216 and 217:
87. Kent, T., An operational guide
Page 218 and 219:
116. Kobus, H.J., Pigou, P.E., Dell
Page 220 and 221:
147. Dayan, S., Almog, J., Khodzhae
Page 222 and 223:
Figure 6.1 Ninhydrin/ZnCl 2 vs. nin
Page 224 and 225:
purposes of understanding their pho
Page 226 and 227:
Ar-laser image monitor lens light c
Page 228 and 229:
laser Figure 6.6 Block diagram of p
Page 230 and 231:
step 1 step 2 step 3 fingerprint co
Page 232 and 233:
nanocrystals. Photoluminescent semi
Page 234 and 235:
Figure 6.11 Photoluminescence of fi
Page 236 and 237:
H H H H N N CH2CH2 CH2CH2 H N N H N
Page 238 and 239:
sample, rather than preferential ad
Page 240 and 241:
O R C OH + R' NH2 R C Figure 6.16 G
Page 242 and 243:
The amidation reaction depicted in
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
R 1 - COOH + HO - N R 1 O C N H Fig
Page 250 and 251:
29. Sooklal, K., Hanus, L.H., Ploeh
Page 252 and 253:
Procedure Water and Acid Pretreatme
Page 254 and 255:
The Silver Physical Development Pro
Page 256 and 257:
(in the emulsion) the silver and si
Page 258 and 259:
ions (found only on paper that has
Page 260 and 261:
as that of print residue on porous
Page 262 and 263:
+ + + + + + + Cit 3- Cit 3- Cit 3-
Page 264 and 265:
Saunders. 22 Both workers recognize
Page 266 and 267:
Figure 7.2 Scanning electron micros
Page 268 and 269:
paper and these convert to ferric o
Page 270 and 271:
Water and Acid Pretreatments The wa
Page 272 and 273:
Figure 7.4 Comparison of a ninhydri
Page 274 and 275:
Figure 7.7 Comparison of a ninhydri
Page 276 and 277:
(0.2%) to not form silver oxide whe
Page 278 and 279:
X-Ray and Scanning Electron Microsc
Page 280 and 281:
is much to be done to optimize the
Page 282 and 283:
3. Margot, P. and Lennard, C., Fing
Page 284 and 285:
35. Morris, J.R. and Wells, J.M., A
Page 286 and 287:
Introduction More than a century ha
Page 288 and 289:
False Reject Rate (FRR) Civilian Ap
Page 290 and 291:
Fingerprint Quality Acquisition Est
Page 292 and 293:
finger gets mapped onto the two-dim
Page 294 and 295:
(a) (b) (c) Figure 8.3 Fingerprint
Page 296 and 297:
In forensics, a special kind of ink
Page 298 and 299:
L A B (a) Finger Friction Surface R
Page 300 and 301:
Fingerprint Representation A finger
Page 302 and 303:
(a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 8.8 A finger
Page 304 and 305:
Figure 8.10 Relative configuration
Page 306 and 307:
A minutiae feature extractor finds
Page 308 and 309:
depicting a ridge in the fingerprin
Page 310 and 311:
1. Singular points. The Poincare in
Page 312 and 313:
Table 8.2 shows the results of the
Page 314 and 315:
(a) (b) Figure 8.13 Two different i
Page 316 and 317:
ox size is adjusted based on the es
Page 318 and 319:
(a) (b) Figure 8.16 Fingerprinting
Page 320 and 321:
0.5 -0.5 -1 200 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 1
Page 322 and 323:
andpass filters and extracts ridges
Page 324 and 325:
(a) (b) Figure 8.19 Examples of enh
Page 326 and 327:
A significant implication of the ab
Page 328 and 329:
or otherwise. Therefore, there are
Page 330 and 331:
Conclusions and Future Prospects Fi
Page 332 and 333:
WSQ-related illustrations (Figure 8
Page 334 and 335:
37. Siemens. The ID Mouse from Siem
Page 336 and 337:
69. L. Hong, A. Jain, and S. Pankan
Page 338 and 339:
Trauring Model (1963) Description o
Page 340 and 341:
correspondence in friction ridge de
Page 342 and 343:
extreme variability of friction rid
Page 344 and 345:
5. Trauring 19 6. Kingston 20 7. Os
Page 346 and 347:
variation need have no relationship
Page 348 and 349:
1. Fork directed to the right 2. Fo
Page 350 and 351:
e closer to reality. In any case, t
Page 352 and 353:
There is not only opportunity for c
Page 354 and 355:
that, in practice, it is relative d
Page 356 and 357:
e the probability that there will b
Page 358 and 359:
Correction factors (G) were introdu
Page 360 and 361:
fingerprint individuality into two
Page 362 and 363:
appreciated that the number of tria
Page 364 and 365:
a corresponding reference point is
Page 366 and 367:
Table 9.1 Kingston’s Relative Fre
Page 368 and 369:
minutia counts in different-sized r
Page 370 and 371:
If one is to use the compound forms
Page 372 and 373: Osterburg Model (1977-1980) Descrip
Page 374 and 375: of any occurrences that appear in t
Page 376 and 377: minutiae. Both the Kingston and Ost
Page 378 and 379: minutia orientation results in regi
Page 380 and 381: Orientation for minutiae was define
Page 382 and 383: the allowable combinations of minut
Page 384 and 385: selected for the study, based on th
Page 386 and 387: Table 9.4 Champod’s Upper Bound F
Page 388 and 389: that Champod and Margot proved to b
Page 390 and 391: fingerprint was isolated. This area
Page 392 and 393: that, for the experiments as design
Page 394 and 395: can be encouraged by the dedication
Page 396 and 397: 37. Amy, L., Valeur de la preuve en
Page 398 and 399: The Expert Fingerprint Witness ROBE
Page 400 and 401: Qualifications of the Fingerprint E
Page 402 and 403: 7. Results of comparisons conducted
Page 404 and 405: granted for a pretrial conference,
Page 406 and 407: any examination that I have conduct
Page 408 and 409: to fully understand the meaning of
Page 410 and 411: When seated in the witness stand, t
Page 412 and 413: jury but looked down at the floor i
Page 414 and 415: Courtroom Courtesy When in court, i
Page 416 and 417: If the attorney does not have the p
Page 418 and 419: Glossary of Commonly Used Courtroom
Page 420 and 421: Indictment An accusation in writing
Page 424 and 425: The U.S. Government set presented e
Page 426: Presided over by the Honorable J. C
show all

Advances in Fingerprint Technology.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?