Operational benefits and challenges of the use of fingerprint statistical models: A field study

Forensic Science International

Volumn 212, Issue 1-3, 2011, Pages 32-46

  Neumann, C ^a   Mateos Garcia Ismael, I ^b   Langenburg Glenn, G ^c   Kostroski Jennifer, J ^c   Skerrett James E , J E ^b   Koolen Martin, M ^c  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

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

Author keywords

Casework application; Fingerprints; Likelihood ratio; Weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FIELD STUDY; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; WORKLOAD;

EID: 80052326486     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. SWGFAST Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions, Draft v1.1 11 February 2011, p. 11. http://www.swgfast.org/documents/conclusions/110315-Conclusions-DRAFT_1.1.pdf (Last verified 25 April 2011).
2. Cole S. Grandfathering evidence: fingerprint admissibility rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and back again. American Criminal Law Review 2004, 4:1189-1276.
3. Cole S. Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: the new epistemology of forensic identification. Law, Probability and Risk 2009, 8:233-255.
4. Saks M., Koehler J.J. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 2005, 309:893-894.
5. State of Maryland v. Bryan Rose, The Circuit Court for the Baltimore County, K06-0545 2007.
6. National Research Council of the National Academies Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p. 328.
7. Stoney D. Measurement of fingerprint individuality. Advances in Fingerprint Technology 2001, 327-388. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 2nd ed. H. Lee, R. Gaensslen (Eds.).
8. Pankanti S., Jain A. On the individuality of fingerprints. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2002, 24:8.
9. Egli N., Champod C., Margot P. Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint identification systems-modeling within finger variability. Forensic Science International 2006, 176:189-195.
10. 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. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2007, 52:54-64.
11. Chen Y., Jain Y., Beyond A. Minutiae: A Fingerprint Individuality Model with Pattern, Ridge and Pore Features 2009, ICB, pp. 523-533.
12. Dass S.C., Li M. Hierarchical mixture model for assessing fingerprint individuality. Annals of Applied Statistics 2009, 3:1448-1466.
13. C. Neumann, I.W. Evett, J.E. Skerrett, Assigning a numerical weight of evidence to a fingerprint comparison, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, in press (public reading in front of the Royal Statistical Society scheduled on September 28th, 2011).
14. G. Langenburg, C. Champod, The GYRO system - a recommended approach to more transparent documentation, Journal of Forensic Identification (2011), in press.
15. Cook R., Evett I.W., Jackson G., Jones P.J., Lambert J.A. Hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Science & Justice 1998, 38:231-239.
16. Manual of Fingerprint Development Techniques 2004, Home Office Scientific Development Branch, Sandridge. V. Bowman (Ed.).
17. Evett I.W., Williams R.L. A review of the sixteen point fingerprint standard in England and Wales. Journal of Forensic Identification 1996, 46:49-73.
18. 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. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2009, 54:571-582.
19. Neumann C., Evett I.W., Skerrett J., Mateos-Garcia I. Quantitative assessment of evidential weight for a fingerprint comparison. I. Generalisation to the comparison of a mark with set of ten prints from a suspect. Forensic Science International 2011, 207:101-105.
20. Cook R., Evett I.W., Jackson G., Jones P.J., Lambert J.A. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science & Justice 1998, 38:151-156.
21. Koehler J.J. The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: how to make DNA - match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Review 2001, 74:1274-1305.
22. Aikten C.G.G., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists 2004, John Wiley and Sons, p. 540. 2nd ed.
23. Kaye D., Hans V.P., Dann M., Farley E., Albertson S. Statistics in the jury box: how jurors respond to mitochondrial DNA match probabilities. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 2007, 4:797-834.
24. McQuiston-Surrett D., Saks M.J. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behavior 2009, 33:436-453.