A Performance study of the ACE-V process: A pilot study to measure the accuracy, precision, reproducibility, repeatability, and biasability of conclusions resulting from the ACE-V process

Journal of Forensic Identification

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 219-257

  Langenberg, Glenn ^a  

^a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; OBSERVER BIAS; PILOT STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 64549158534     PISSN: 0895173X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Daubert et al. v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
2. United States v Byron Mitchell, CA-No. 96-407, Daubert hearing transcript, July 7-9, and July 12-13, 1999.
3. United States v Patrick Crisp, 324 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2003).
4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Terry Patterson, SJC-09478, appeal of 432 Mass. 767 (2000), December 27, 2005.
5. Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1923).
6. State of Maryland v Bryan Rose, Case No. K06-0545, October 19, 2007.
7. State of Minnesota v Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 1980.
8. Federal Rules of Evidence; House of Representatives - The Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, amended April 2000.
9. State of Minnesota v Columbus, C.A. No. 05-4980, 2006.
10. State of Minnesota v Columbus, C.A. No. 05-4980, 2006. Evidentiary hearing testimony of Simon Cole, pp 75-82.
11. State of Minnesota v Columbus, C.A. No. 05-4980, 2006. Evidentiary hearing testimony of Simon Cole, pg 99.
12. State of Minnesota v Columbus, C.A. No. 05-4980, 2006. Evidentiary hearing testimony of Glenn Langenburg, pp 115-116.
13. Evett, I.; William, R. A Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fingerprint Detection and Identification; Almog, J., Springer, E., Eds.; Ne'urim, Israel, 1995, pp 287-304.
14. Wertheim, K.; Langenburg, G.; Moenssens, A. A Report of Latent Print Examiner Accuracy During Comparison Training Exercises. J. For. Ident. 2006, 56 (1), 55-93.
15. Gutowski, S. Error Rates in Fingerprint Examination: The View in 2006. The Forensic Bulletin, Autumn 2006, 18-19.
16. Langenburg, G.; Champod, C; Wertheim, P. Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects During the Verification Stage of the ACE-V Methodology When Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons. J. For. Sci., in press.
17. IUPAC Glossary of Terms Used in Toxicology. http://sis.nlm. nih.gov/enviro/iupacglossary/glossaryr.html; accessed June 20,2008.
18. Black, J. P. Pilot Study: The Application of ACE-V to Simultaneous (Cluster) Impressions. J. For. Ident. 2006, 56 (6), 933-971.
19. Dror, I. E.; Charlton, D; Péron, A. E. Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications. For. Sci. Int. 2006, 156, 74-78.
20. Dror, I. E.; Charlton, D. Why Experts Make Errors. J. For. Ident. 2006, 56 (4), 600-616.
21. Cole, S. More Than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification. J. Crim Law Crim. 2005, 95 (3), 985-1078.
22. Dror, I. E.; Rosenthal, R. Meta-analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts. J. For. Sci. 2008, 53 (4), 900-903.
23. Neumann, C; Champod, C; Puch-Solis, R.; Egli, N.; Anthonioz, A.; Bromage-Griffiths, A. Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Any Number of Minutiae. J For. Sci. 2007, 52 (1), 54-64.
24. United States v Byron Mitchell, 365 F.3d 217 (3rd Circuit, 2004), p 30.
25. Saks, M. J.; Koehler, J. J. The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science. Science 2005, 309 (5736), 892-895.
26. Cole, S. A. The Prevalence and Potential Causes of Wrongful Conviction by Fingerprint Evidence. Golden Gate U. Law Rev. 2006, 37 (1), 39-105.