Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 571-582

  Langenburg, Glenn ^a,b   Champod, Christophe ^c   Wertheim, Pat ^d  

^a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension   (United States)

^b Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Forensic Science Services   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^d Public Safety Crime Laboratory   (United States)

Author keywords

ACE; Cognitive psychology; Context bias; Fingerprints; Forensic science; Verification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NONRESPONSE BIAS; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; AGED; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; DERMATOGLYPHICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RANDOM ALLOCATION;

EID: 65349124804     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Stacey R. Report on the erroneous fingerprint individualization in the Madrid train bombing case. J Forensic Identif 2004 54 (6 706 18.
2. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) A review of the FBI's handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice, 2006. Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0601/PDF-list.htm. Accessed March 4, 2009.
3. McRoberts F, Possley M. Report blasts FBI lab: peer pressure led to false ID of Madrid fingerprint. Chicago Tribune 2004 Nov 14. Available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0411140299nov14,0,3336405.story. Accessed January 2, 2009.
4. State of New Hampshire v. Richard Langill. No. 05-S-1129, January 19, 2007.
5. State of New Hampshire v. Richard Langill. No. 2007-300, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, April 4, 2008.
6. State of Maryland v. Bryan Rose. Case No. K06-0545, 2007.
7. Dror IE, Peron AE, Hind SL, Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol 2005 19 : 799 809.
8. Cordaro L, Ison JR. The psychology of the scientist: observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian. Psychol Rep 1963 13 : 787 9.
9. Nordby J. Can we believe what we see, if we see what we believe? Expert disagreement. J Forensic Sci 1992 37 (4 1115 24.
10. Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST). Friction ridge examination methodology for latent print examiners. ver. 1.01. 2002, Available at: http://swgfast.org.
11. Haber L, Haber RN. Scientific validation of fingerprint evidence under Daubert. Law, Probability and Risk 2007 7 (2 87 109.
12. Cole SA. More than zero: accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. J Crim Law Criminol 2005 95 (3 985 1078.
13. Steele LJ. The defense challenge to fingerprints. Crim Law Bull 2004 40 (3 213 40.
14. Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif Law Rev 2002 90 (1 1 56.
15. Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron AE. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 2006 156 : 74 8.
16. Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identif 2006 54 (4 600 16.
17. Dror IE, Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. J Forensic Sci 2008 53 (4 1 4.
18. Champod C, Margot P, Lennard C, Stoilovic M. Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions. Boca Raton : CRC Press, 2004 200.
19. Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST). Quality assurance guidelines for latent print examiners. ver. 3.0. 2006, Available at: http://swgfast.org.
20. Kam M, Wetstein J, Conn R. Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification. J Forensic Sci 1994 39 (1 5 14.
21. Kam M, Fielding G, Conn R. Writer identification by professional document examiners. J Forensic Sci 1997 42 (5 778 86.
22. Kam M, Gummadidala K, Fielding G, Conn R. Signature authentication by forensic document examiners. J Forensic Sci 2001 46 (4 884 8.
23. Wertheim P. The ability equation. J Forensic Identif 1996 46 (2 149 59.
24. Byrd J. Confirmation bias, ethics, and mistakes in forensics. J Forensic Identif 2006 56 (4 520.
25. Leo W. Identification standards: the quest for excellence. Calif Identif Dig 1995 12 (1 1.
26. Evett I, Williams R. A review of the sixteen points fingerprint standard in England and Wales. In : Almog J, Springer E, editors. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fingerprint Detection and Identification 1995 June 26-30; Ne'urim, Israel. Ne'urim (Israel) : Hemed Press, 1995 287 304.
27. Schiffer B, Champod C. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualisation. Forensic Sci Int 2007 167 (2-3 116 20.