Byline: Jim Stasiowski

Some fingerprint examiners aid defense attorneys by reviewing fingerprint evidence. For instance, when a defense attorney asks for help, Pat Wertheim sends a letter that, in part, requires the following:

High-quality photos, scans or images on disk of all the latent-print evidence in the case, not just the latents identified as belonging to the defendant. Wertheim asks for both sides of all fingerprint lift cards. Photocopies are not acceptable. Quality copies of all of the defendant's fingerprints and palm prints that police have. Copies of all crime-scene notes, crime-scene photographs, photographs showing the latent prints, laboratory-examination notes and other police-produced notes that relate to the fingerprint evidence in the case. A set of the defendant's fingerprints that the attorney is certain came from the defendant.

Lisa J. Steele of Steele & Associates in Bolton, Mass., specializes in representing indigent criminal defendants on appeal. She says a defense attorney should look for red flags in the prosecution's presenting of fingerprint evidence. Here are some:

The original latent print is not available, even though preserving it was feasible. If the evidence was removed from the scene for processing, there is no clear documentation of the evidence at the scene. Charted enlargements look odd: blurry, color reversed, cropped in unusual ways, etc. The examiner has an abnormally high caseload. The lab is not accredited. The latent print is of poor quality. The examiner found only a single match using the International Automated Fingerprint Identification System. The examiner and verifier had a close relationship, that is, a culture of conformity existed in the lab. The verification was not blind, that is, the verifier knew the examiner, and the verifier knew the examiner's conclusion.