Here is a link to an interesting article about a ruling from south Florida relating to criminal law and the admissibility of fingerprint evidence. It is a quick read if you have a minute.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch, who often wades into controversial legal ground, is questioning long-accepted scientific ideas on latent prints.
Comments from my Facebook post on this topic:MJC: Am I reading this right Ken? He thinks fingerprints should be limited b/c they could be similar?? I thought we all had exclusive prints like DNA?? Am I wrong?? Ken: The judge will allow fingerprint evidence to be presented to the jury but will not allow the fingerprint expert to say it “matches” the Defendant’s prints only that they are similar. From a strictly scientific point of view this is a correct ruling, however courts have allowed testimony that prints “match”. DY: whats next throwing out confessions, oh wait they do that already, video tapes of the crimes, they could throw them out…… Ken: The area of false confessions is fascinating to me as innocent people sometimes confess where they have nothing to gain and the questioning seems non coercive. Then there are confessions made up by jail inmates and traded to the gullible. So yes, some “confessions” should be excluded from evidence.