The Acceptable Error Rate is ZERO

        If you are a Latent Print Examiner, you know the above statement to be true.  If you are an attorney, police administrator or other non-expert, this may sound unrealistically strict.  Scientists generally concur that a reliability of 95% constitutes scientific certainty. 

      In many areas of science and many professions, such reliability serves society well.  For example, the acceptable error rate for Chicken Sexers (persons who examine the backsides of one-day-old chicks to sort males from females) is between 2.3 and 5 percent when examining 700 to 800 chicks per hour.

       A latent fingerprint, or palm print, "identification" is the determination that two corresponding areas of friction skin impressions originated from the same person to the exclusion of all others.  This absolute identification decision can carry great weight in police decisions about investigations, and court decisions about guilt or innocence.  Latent Print Examiner errors involving evaluation (whether marks are of value or not) and elimination (marks were not made by a person) are serious, but do not normally carry the same potential for harm as erroneous identifications.  An example of the degree of importance afforded identification decisions can be seen in scoring procedures for friction ridge impression comparison tests.  Universally, even if an exam has hundreds of latent prints and thousands of record (inked) prints, some mistakes involving evaluation or elimination are expected, but a single erroneous identification is automatic failure.  The acceptable finger or palm print identification error rate is zero. (Emphasis Added.)

        Because in any field of human endeavor there will always be errors, quality control and quality assurance standards are necessary to protect society.  Standards for initial "training to competency," case by case quality control, and long term quality assurance including life cycle training and periodic proficiency testing are essential.  Periodic proficiency testing can reveal bad habits developed since initial training to competency.  It may also reveal deteriorating eyesight or other human deficiencies impacting casework. 

        One set of standards is set forth in the Quality Assurance Guidelines of the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST).

        Upon detecting erroneous identification decisions (not just clerical errors and not just failing to find a "match") most agencies immediately suspend the examiner from further casework activity.  Remedies to ensure a zero error rate include the following: Return of the examiners to friction ridge identification duties only after retraining and evaluation indicate the experts can operate at zero identification error rate;  Permanent transfer to other duties; Employment termination. (Emphasis Added.)

          SOURCE: http://onin.com-fp-problemidents.html#Zero_tolerance_explanation

 
 

CASES INVESTIGATED
(RED dates indicate cases in which I testified.)

   
 

June 29, 2005 - On behalf of the Defendant re: United States v. Anthony Howell.  Def. Atty: Edward Genson, Chicago, IL, U. S. District Court of Northern Illinois. Issue: Fingerprint Evidence Evaluation .
  June 5, 2005 - On behalf of Defendant re: Com. v. Charles Odware. Def. Atty: Dan Solomon, Boston, MA. Suffolk Superior Court. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  October 5, 2005 - On behalf of Defendant re: Com. v. Afries J. Rodrigues. Def. Atty: Harrison Barrow, Chatham, MA. Orleans Dist. Court. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
 

March 29, 2006 - On behalf of the Defendant Jury Trial re: People v. Kayson Pearson. Def. Atty: John Stella, NYC. Kings County Superior Court, jury trial, Brooklyn, NY. J., Albert Tomei. Issue: Misidentified fingerprint.

 

October 2006 - On behalf of Defendant re: Com. v. Brad J. Santos, Def. Atty:  C. Samuel Sutter, Fall River, MA. Bristol County Superior Court. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
 

November 30, 2006 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v.  Richard Cruz.  Def. Atty: Desmond Fitzgerald, Boston, MA. J., Richard Welch, Essex Superior Court, Lawrence, MA. Issue: Falsified10-print fingerprint card.

  March 9, 2009 - On behalf of Defendant re: Com. v. Siereveld. CPCS Staff Atty: Jane Peachy. Brockton, MA. Plymouth County Superior Court, Brockton, MA. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  June 2009 - On behalf of Defendant re: United States v. Oscar Machicote. Def. Atty: John G. Swomley, Boston, MA. U.S. District Court, Boston MA. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  September 23, 2009 -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Jason Flores.  Def. Atty: George P. J. Van Duinwyk & Joseph DeRosa, J., Kathryn  Hand, District Court (Jury), Wareham, MA. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  October 15, 2009 - On behalf of Defendant re: Com. v. Matthew Buhour-Gonsalves. Def. Atty: Peter Dansereau, Plymouth, MA. District Court, Plymouth MA. Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  November 9,  2009 -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Julio Valentin.  Defense Atty: J. Thomas Kerner, Boston. J., Regina Quinlan, Suffolk Superior Court, Jury Trial, Boston, MA. Issue: Daubert hearing - Qualified as Fingerprint Expert
  November 13, 2009 - On behalf of Defendant re: Com. v. Morales. Def. Atty: Nora T. Driscoll, Worcester, MA. Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  February 3, 2010  -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Hector Montalvo.  Defense Atty: J. Damian n. Riddle, Lunenburg, MA. Worcester District Court Jury Trial. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  April 13,  2010  -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Joseph Caldwell.  Defense Attorney: Tonomey Coleman, Boston, MA. Suffolk Superior Court Jury Trial. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  September 29,  2010  -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Kenny LaGuerre Defense Attorney: Kathryn McIntyre-Sullivan, Boston, MA. Dorchester District  Court, J., James Coyne. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  October 4, 2010 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Roberto Pena. Defense Attorney NIcholas Morana,  Shrewsbury, MA. Worcester Juv. Court. J., Mary Beth Keating. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  October 6, 2010  -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Chisom Azubuko.  Defense Attorney: Albert F. Cullen, III, Boston, MA. Dorchester District Court, Boston, MA. J., James Coyne.  Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
 
October 12, 2010  -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Larriston Lake,  Defense Attorney: Daniel Solomon, Boston, MA. Suffolk Superior Court, Boston, MA. J., Donovan.  Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.

February 7, 2011. On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Ezekiel Glover.  Defense Atty: Astrid afKlinbtenberg, Salem, MA. Peabody District Court, Peabody, MA. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
April 14, 2011 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Denzel Horne.  Defense Atty: Carl Donaldson, Boston,MA Middlesex Superior Court, Jury Trial, Woburn, MA. Issue: Fingerprint Evidence Evaluation.
June 6, 2011 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Timothy Imbriglio.  Defense Atty: Matthew Kamholtz, Boston, MA. Bristol Superior Court, Fall River, MA. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  June 8 , 2011 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Joseph P. Cole  Defense Atty: Malcom B. Smith, Northhampton, MA. East Hampshire District Court. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  June 22, 2011 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Diondre Hudson  Defense Atty: Tom Kaplanes, Boston, MA. Boston Municipal Court, Boston, MA. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  June 24, 2011 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Richard Durante   Defense Atty: Christopher P. Ryan, Quincy, MA. Norfolk Superior Court, Dedham, MA. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  August 10 , 2011 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Larisa Anjuhar   Defense Atty: James P. Hentz, Worcester, MA. Leominster District Court, Dedham, MA. Issue: Fingerprint evidence evaluation.
  October 31, 2011 -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Marquis Browder.  Defense Atty: Marcy C. Levington, Cambridge,, MA. Suffolk Superior Court, Boston, MA. Issue: Fingerprint Evidence Evaluation
  October 31, 2011 -  On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Shaheed Abdullah.  Defense Atty: Charles Jordan, Medford, MA. J., Regina Quinlan, Suffolk Superior Court, Jury Trial, Boston, MA. Issue: Fingerprint Evaluation.
  January 26, 2012 - On behalf of the Defendant re: Com. v. Denzel Horne.  Defense Atty: Daniel Beck, Cambridge,MA Middlesex Superior Court, Jury Trial, Woburn, MA. Issue: Fingerprint Evidence Evaluation.
 

 
.
Design by  Think10
414