WEBVTT - #398 Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Fingerprint Evidence

0:00:02.560 --> 0:00:05.280
<v Speaker 1>Hey, folks, Kate Judson here. I'm a lawyer and the

0:00:05.320 --> 0:00:09.320
<v Speaker 1>executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences.

0:00:10.960 --> 0:00:14.120
<v Speaker 1>We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series

0:00:14.160 --> 0:00:17.560
<v Speaker 1>we first released in twenty twenty, but these stories are

0:00:17.720 --> 0:00:20.919
<v Speaker 1>just as relevant as ever. The episode you're about to

0:00:20.960 --> 0:00:24.040
<v Speaker 1>hear is about fingerprint evidence, a type of evidence we've

0:00:24.040 --> 0:00:27.000
<v Speaker 1>been taught to believe is super reliable through things like

0:00:27.080 --> 0:00:30.400
<v Speaker 1>TV crime dramas. But like all the forensics we explore

0:00:30.440 --> 0:00:33.159
<v Speaker 1>in this series, the truth is more complicated than that.

0:00:34.920 --> 0:00:38.560
<v Speaker 1>One of the biggest issues is that of close non matches, which,

0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:42.199
<v Speaker 1>as it sounds, is when two prints are very similar

0:00:42.240 --> 0:00:44.839
<v Speaker 1>to each other but in fact did not come from

0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:50.360
<v Speaker 1>the same person. A twenty twenty article by J. Kohler

0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:53.519
<v Speaker 1>of Northwestern University reported that there was up to a

0:00:53.560 --> 0:00:56.720
<v Speaker 1>twenty eight percent air rate of false positives for close

0:00:56.760 --> 0:01:00.120
<v Speaker 1>non matches, not exactly a foolproof way to pre of

0:01:00.160 --> 0:01:08.120
<v Speaker 1>guilt or innocence, and definitely not beyond a reasonable doubt.

0:01:10.000 --> 0:01:13.560
<v Speaker 2>It's Friday night. You hop in the shower, then put

0:01:13.560 --> 0:01:16.959
<v Speaker 2>on your favorite blue button down shirt. You look at

0:01:17.000 --> 0:01:19.759
<v Speaker 2>yourself in the mirror and hype yourself up a bit.

0:01:20.680 --> 0:01:23.480
<v Speaker 2>You're forty years old, but you've taken good care of

0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:26.640
<v Speaker 2>yourself over the years and still look pretty damn good.

0:01:28.319 --> 0:01:30.440
<v Speaker 2>You head out, and when you get to the club,

0:01:30.480 --> 0:01:33.319
<v Speaker 2>you see your friend Alvin standing outside on the corner

0:01:33.400 --> 0:01:37.120
<v Speaker 2>waiting for you. You smile because Alvin's always a good time.

0:01:37.640 --> 0:01:39.720
<v Speaker 2>He might be the only person who can keep up

0:01:39.720 --> 0:01:43.280
<v Speaker 2>with you when you dance all night. You both head

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:46.200
<v Speaker 2>inside and grab a drink, catch up a little bit,

0:01:46.360 --> 0:01:49.920
<v Speaker 2>and then hit the dance floor. The place is all

0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:53.920
<v Speaker 2>bass and flashing lights. Neither one of you stops moving

0:01:54.000 --> 0:01:56.880
<v Speaker 2>until they turn off the music, and the DJ tells

0:01:56.920 --> 0:02:01.360
<v Speaker 2>everyone it's closing time. Time to get at it. When

0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:03.520
<v Speaker 2>you get outside the club, you say goodbye to Alvin

0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:05.480
<v Speaker 2>because you have to get up early in the morning.

0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:07.640
<v Speaker 2>You're not going to go back to his place tonight.

0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:11.920
<v Speaker 2>You give Alvin a call the next weekend, but there's

0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:16.040
<v Speaker 2>no answer. You don't think much of it because Alvin

0:02:16.120 --> 0:02:19.320
<v Speaker 2>sometimes just doesn't answer his phone. He's the kind of

0:02:19.320 --> 0:02:23.320
<v Speaker 2>guy that does his own thing. But then a few

0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:27.240
<v Speaker 2>days later you get a call from another friend. He

0:02:27.280 --> 0:02:30.639
<v Speaker 2>tells you he passed by Alvin's house and there were

0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:35.840
<v Speaker 2>police officers surrounding it. They said that Alvin had been murdered.

0:02:37.200 --> 0:02:40.200
<v Speaker 2>You hang up and immediately head to the police station.

0:02:40.880 --> 0:02:44.040
<v Speaker 2>You want to help figure out who did this. You

0:02:44.120 --> 0:02:47.200
<v Speaker 2>meet with detectives and you find out that Alvin was

0:02:47.320 --> 0:02:50.600
<v Speaker 2>murdered on the night you went dancing with him, but

0:02:50.680 --> 0:02:55.440
<v Speaker 2>he wasn't discovered until nine days later. His landlord found

0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:58.000
<v Speaker 2>him on the floor of his apartment. And you hear

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:02.160
<v Speaker 2>all this, and you're just immediately as if you had

0:03:02.200 --> 0:03:04.880
<v Speaker 2>stayed at his house that night, maybe you could have

0:03:04.960 --> 0:03:08.920
<v Speaker 2>protected him. You tell the police everything you can remember

0:03:08.960 --> 0:03:12.480
<v Speaker 2>about that night. You want to do anything you can

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:15.320
<v Speaker 2>to help them find out who did this to your friend.

0:03:18.560 --> 0:03:21.160
<v Speaker 2>The police call you in four times over the next

0:03:21.160 --> 0:03:25.240
<v Speaker 2>two weeks as they investigate Alvin's murder. One day, they

0:03:25.280 --> 0:03:28.480
<v Speaker 2>tell you they're taking fingerprints of everyone who had been

0:03:28.520 --> 0:03:32.280
<v Speaker 2>around Alvin in the days preceding his death. They tell

0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:34.960
<v Speaker 2>you that by allowing them to take your prints, it'll

0:03:34.960 --> 0:03:37.880
<v Speaker 2>help them figure out who committed the murder. Part of

0:03:37.920 --> 0:03:40.840
<v Speaker 2>you feels like you're in an episode of some detective show.

0:03:41.120 --> 0:03:43.560
<v Speaker 2>When they press the tips of your fingers and the

0:03:43.600 --> 0:03:47.120
<v Speaker 2>palms of your hands on a cold inkpad, then roll

0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:49.520
<v Speaker 2>the tips of your fingers one by one on a

0:03:49.520 --> 0:03:52.840
<v Speaker 2>piece of paper. You've seen this process what seems like

0:03:52.960 --> 0:03:55.840
<v Speaker 2>hundreds of times before on TV and in the movies,

0:03:56.320 --> 0:03:59.640
<v Speaker 2>but you've never actually done it yourself. You have no record.

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:04.080
<v Speaker 2>I've never been fingerprinted before. Not long after that, the

0:04:04.120 --> 0:04:06.800
<v Speaker 2>police call you into the station one more time, but

0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:13.720
<v Speaker 2>something has shifted. They bring you into an interrogation room.

0:04:14.480 --> 0:04:17.880
<v Speaker 2>The first thing they do is show you a polaroid

0:04:18.160 --> 0:04:22.800
<v Speaker 2>of Alvin's body. You immediately feel fluid bubble into your

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:27.000
<v Speaker 2>esophagus and you quickly scan the room for a garbage can.

0:04:27.240 --> 0:04:30.839
<v Speaker 2>Your mind quickly computes shit. If ipwke in front of

0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:34.839
<v Speaker 2>these cops, they'll think I did this. You manage to

0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:38.440
<v Speaker 2>swallow the vomit and there's a sharp burn in your throat.

0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:42.640
<v Speaker 2>Then they show you another picture and Alvin is flat

0:04:42.680 --> 0:04:47.560
<v Speaker 2>on his back. There's blood everywhere, on his clothes, the

0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:50.159
<v Speaker 2>carpet next to him. You can't even see his face.

0:04:50.160 --> 0:04:53.760
<v Speaker 2>Whoever did this put Alvin's big white box fan over

0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 2>his head and shoulders so you can't see the top

0:04:56.480 --> 0:04:59.120
<v Speaker 2>portion of his body. You used to make fun of

0:04:59.120 --> 0:05:01.800
<v Speaker 2>Alvin for that fan, and you were always telling him

0:05:01.800 --> 0:05:05.120
<v Speaker 2>just to invest in a damn ac unit already the

0:05:05.160 --> 0:05:09.640
<v Speaker 2>whole thing seems so surreal. And now the officers are

0:05:09.720 --> 0:05:12.200
<v Speaker 2>pointing at the fan in the picture and they say,

0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:15.880
<v Speaker 2>you see those bloody smudges on the fan. Those are

0:05:15.960 --> 0:05:19.320
<v Speaker 2>fingerprints and the prince we took from you the other day.

0:05:19.960 --> 0:05:23.320
<v Speaker 2>We've collected over a dozen fingerprints of people who were

0:05:23.400 --> 0:05:27.760
<v Speaker 2>in Alvin's apartment before he was murdered, and only yours

0:05:27.800 --> 0:05:30.599
<v Speaker 2>matched the prints on that fan. There were no signs

0:05:30.600 --> 0:05:33.320
<v Speaker 2>of break in at his apartment, but you didn't have

0:05:33.400 --> 0:05:36.520
<v Speaker 2>to break in, did you. Alvin let you in after

0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:39.720
<v Speaker 2>your night out together. Then you got in an argument

0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:42.359
<v Speaker 2>with him, You got jealous that he was dancing with

0:05:42.440 --> 0:05:46.360
<v Speaker 2>other men, and you stabbed him to death, didn't you.

0:05:46.360 --> 0:05:48.240
<v Speaker 2>You stare at the officer and disbelieve.

0:05:48.440 --> 0:05:48.520
<v Speaker 3>No.

0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:51.520
<v Speaker 2>You say, what are you talking about? Why would I

0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:54.240
<v Speaker 2>come here willingly to help you guys out if I

0:05:54.320 --> 0:05:58.200
<v Speaker 2>had anything to do with this. They don't listen to

0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:01.800
<v Speaker 2>a word you say. They put handcuffs on you and

0:06:01.880 --> 0:06:09.960
<v Speaker 2>put you in custody. At your trial, the prosecution calls

0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:14.360
<v Speaker 2>a fingerprint expert to the stand. He says, before we're

0:06:14.360 --> 0:06:18.520
<v Speaker 2>even born as fetuses in the womb, human beings develop

0:06:18.720 --> 0:06:22.920
<v Speaker 2>ridges on their fingers and hands. In addition to those ridges,

0:06:22.960 --> 0:06:26.120
<v Speaker 2>we have glands that secrete oils, so that when we

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:30.279
<v Speaker 2>touch objects the worlds loops and swirl pattern of those

0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:35.000
<v Speaker 2>ridges are left behind. Fingerprint analysis has been around for

0:06:35.080 --> 0:06:38.200
<v Speaker 2>over one hundred years, and we know that each of

0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:42.359
<v Speaker 2>our fingerprints are unique. The fingerprints were covered from this

0:06:42.600 --> 0:06:46.040
<v Speaker 2>crime scene were visible to the naked eye because they

0:06:46.040 --> 0:06:50.280
<v Speaker 2>were left as impressions in the victim's blood. I analyze

0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:54.240
<v Speaker 2>these prints and compare them to defining characteristics of the

0:06:54.279 --> 0:06:58.719
<v Speaker 2>defendants prints. The bloody prints found near the victim's body

0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:02.599
<v Speaker 2>clearly belong to the defendant. I am one hundred percent

0:07:02.800 --> 0:07:07.560
<v Speaker 2>certain about this. The prosecution calls two more fingerprint experts

0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:12.160
<v Speaker 2>to the stand and they all agree these are your prints.

0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:17.080
<v Speaker 2>But your attorney calls two witnesses to the stan fingerprint

0:07:17.120 --> 0:07:20.679
<v Speaker 2>experts that claim it isn't even close. There's no way

0:07:20.760 --> 0:07:24.520
<v Speaker 2>these prints belong to you. The jury isn't phased by

0:07:24.520 --> 0:07:28.640
<v Speaker 2>the conflicting opinions of the expert witnesses. They are convinced

0:07:28.760 --> 0:07:32.720
<v Speaker 2>by the impassioned story that the prosecutor laid out. They

0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:36.440
<v Speaker 2>convict you of first degree murder and abuse of a corpse.

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:41.960
<v Speaker 2>Your sentenced to life without parole. There are shouting in

0:07:42.000 --> 0:07:44.880
<v Speaker 2>the courtroom as you're escorted out by cops with your

0:07:44.920 --> 0:07:49.200
<v Speaker 2>hands cuffed tightly behind your back. You can't understand why

0:07:49.240 --> 0:07:52.880
<v Speaker 2>this is happening, What is going on? Those are not

0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:59.920
<v Speaker 2>your fingerprints. You feel totally and completely helpless. But lucky

0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:04.680
<v Speaker 2>for you, this isn't the end. The fingerprint experts that

0:08:04.800 --> 0:08:08.880
<v Speaker 2>testified in your defense call this conviction a gross miscarriage

0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:13.720
<v Speaker 2>of justice. They demand that the evidence be reevaluated. A

0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:17.200
<v Speaker 2>panel of experts do just that and find that the

0:08:17.240 --> 0:08:21.800
<v Speaker 2>prosecution's evaluation was clearly wrong. The prints at the crime

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:26.240
<v Speaker 2>scene clearly do not match your fingerprints. One of the

0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:30.320
<v Speaker 2>experts for the prosecution admits he made a mistake. You're

0:08:30.360 --> 0:08:33.800
<v Speaker 2>afforded a new trial and you are found not guilty.

0:08:34.800 --> 0:08:39.679
<v Speaker 2>But this process takes two agonizing years, and after serving

0:08:39.760 --> 0:08:42.320
<v Speaker 2>that amount of time in prison for a crime you

0:08:42.400 --> 0:08:49.920
<v Speaker 2>never committed, the murder of your friend, you're released. The

0:08:50.000 --> 0:08:52.720
<v Speaker 2>story you just heard is based on the true story

0:08:52.760 --> 0:08:56.240
<v Speaker 2>of Richard Jackson, who was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to

0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:59.440
<v Speaker 2>life without parole for the murderer of his friend Alvin

0:08:59.520 --> 0:09:04.160
<v Speaker 2>Davis nineteen ninety eight. While fingerprint analysis has been proven

0:09:04.200 --> 0:09:08.440
<v Speaker 2>to be purely subjective, it still holds a firm place

0:09:08.480 --> 0:09:13.520
<v Speaker 2>in the public imagination and therefore enjures minds as reliable science.

0:09:16.040 --> 0:09:19.920
<v Speaker 2>I'm Josh Dubin, civil rights and criminal defense attorney, an

0:09:19.920 --> 0:09:23.959
<v Speaker 2>Innocent ambassador to the Innocence Project in New York. Today,

0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:30.320
<v Speaker 2>on Wrongful Conviction Junk Science, we examined fingerprint evidence contrary

0:09:30.320 --> 0:09:33.640
<v Speaker 2>to what pop culture has ingrained in the American conscience.

0:09:34.040 --> 0:09:37.720
<v Speaker 2>Matching known prints of a suspect the prince left at

0:09:37.760 --> 0:09:40.880
<v Speaker 2>the scene of a crime is not an exact science.

0:09:41.520 --> 0:09:45.559
<v Speaker 2>It is entirely subjective up to the eye of the examiner.

0:09:46.679 --> 0:09:50.280
<v Speaker 2>So how did fingerprints become so widely accepted and thought

0:09:50.320 --> 0:09:54.560
<v Speaker 2>of as the gold standard as full proof evidence. It

0:09:54.640 --> 0:09:57.840
<v Speaker 2>turns out that the first time fingerprints were admitted into

0:09:57.840 --> 0:10:01.440
<v Speaker 2>evidence was almost one hundred and ten years ago, and

0:10:01.480 --> 0:10:05.280
<v Speaker 2>the methods used to match prints to individuals hasn't changed

0:10:05.360 --> 0:10:05.920
<v Speaker 2>much since.

0:10:11.800 --> 0:10:14.760
<v Speaker 3>The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode

0:10:14.760 --> 0:10:17.520
<v Speaker 3>of wrongful conviction, with Jason Flahm and of the Last

0:10:17.559 --> 0:10:21.360
<v Speaker 3>Mile organization, which provides business and tech training to help

0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:26.640
<v Speaker 3>incarcerated individuals successfully and permanently re enter the workforce. The

0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:29.960
<v Speaker 3>Pacers Foundation is committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers

0:10:30.000 --> 0:10:34.920
<v Speaker 3>across Indiana, supporting organizations dedicated primarily to helping young people

0:10:35.040 --> 0:10:38.000
<v Speaker 3>and students. For more information on the work of the

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:42.240
<v Speaker 3>Pacers Foundation or the Last Mile Program, visit Pacersfoundation dot

0:10:42.360 --> 0:10:44.640
<v Speaker 3>org or the Lastmile dot org.

0:10:53.800 --> 0:10:57.200
<v Speaker 2>As Clarence Hiller painted the railing outside his home in

0:10:57.240 --> 0:11:01.480
<v Speaker 2>the early evening of September eighteenth, nineteen, he couldn't stop

0:11:01.520 --> 0:11:04.800
<v Speaker 2>looking over his shoulder. It seemed like the entire South

0:11:04.840 --> 0:11:07.439
<v Speaker 2>side of Chicago was on edge. There had been a

0:11:07.520 --> 0:11:10.760
<v Speaker 2>number of robberies in the area, and everyone was worried

0:11:10.760 --> 0:11:14.160
<v Speaker 2>that they could be the next victim, and so in

0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:17.120
<v Speaker 2>the middle of that night, when Clarence heard the screams

0:11:17.160 --> 0:11:19.960
<v Speaker 2>of his wife and daughter, he was prepared to launch

0:11:20.000 --> 0:11:23.480
<v Speaker 2>into action. He confronted the stranger in his house, and

0:11:23.520 --> 0:11:26.080
<v Speaker 2>as Clarence tried to force the man out, both the

0:11:26.200 --> 0:11:30.760
<v Speaker 2>robber and Clarence fell down the stairs. Three shots were fired,

0:11:31.200 --> 0:11:34.160
<v Speaker 2>The intruder fled, and his neighbors came outside and their

0:11:34.200 --> 0:11:37.360
<v Speaker 2>slippers and robes to see what had happened. They found

0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:40.839
<v Speaker 2>Clarence bleeding just outside his front door with his daughter

0:11:40.920 --> 0:11:44.800
<v Speaker 2>standing over him. The police were called and a suspect,

0:11:44.880 --> 0:11:48.760
<v Speaker 2>Thomas Jennings, was found just eight blocks away. His coat

0:11:48.880 --> 0:11:51.640
<v Speaker 2>was torn and bloody, and he was carrying a revolver.

0:11:52.440 --> 0:11:55.880
<v Speaker 2>Thomas Jennings was ultimately convicted, but this wasn't the only

0:11:55.960 --> 0:11:59.839
<v Speaker 2>evidence used in his prosecution. When Thomas Jennings climbed it

0:11:59.880 --> 0:12:02.640
<v Speaker 2>to the Hiller's home that night, he grabbed onto the

0:12:02.760 --> 0:12:05.880
<v Speaker 2>railing that Clearance was painting the night before, leaving a

0:12:05.920 --> 0:12:09.679
<v Speaker 2>fingerprint behind in a semi wet coat of paint. The

0:12:09.720 --> 0:12:12.000
<v Speaker 2>prosecution cut off the piece of the rail with the

0:12:12.040 --> 0:12:16.640
<v Speaker 2>fingerprint that Jennings left behind. At his murder trial, jennings

0:12:16.640 --> 0:12:19.960
<v Speaker 2>defense attorney argued that this new forensic method of lifting

0:12:20.040 --> 0:12:23.600
<v Speaker 2>and comparing fingerprints couldn't be trusted. There were no tests

0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:26.920
<v Speaker 2>that could prove that it was reliable. But then the

0:12:26.960 --> 0:12:29.880
<v Speaker 2>prosecutor got in front of the jury and pressed his

0:12:29.880 --> 0:12:33.120
<v Speaker 2>finger onto a piece of paper. He then demonstrated how

0:12:33.160 --> 0:12:35.360
<v Speaker 2>he was able to lift his own print off of it.

0:12:35.760 --> 0:12:38.600
<v Speaker 2>By proving that he could collect the evidence, he was

0:12:38.600 --> 0:12:41.559
<v Speaker 2>able to convince the jury that it was also possible

0:12:41.920 --> 0:12:46.160
<v Speaker 2>to accurately analyze and match it to a suspect. The

0:12:46.280 --> 0:12:50.720
<v Speaker 2>judge ruled that fingerprint testimony was admissible, and Jennings was convicted.

0:12:51.640 --> 0:12:55.560
<v Speaker 2>The precedent of admitting fingerprints has been upheld again and again,

0:12:55.800 --> 0:12:58.719
<v Speaker 2>despite the fact that numerous men and women have been

0:12:58.880 --> 0:13:03.600
<v Speaker 2>falsely identified through fingerprint evidence. For example, on March eleventh,

0:13:03.600 --> 0:13:06.359
<v Speaker 2>two thousand and four, there were a series of explosions

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:09.839
<v Speaker 2>in Madrid during rush hour. Ten bombs went off, all

0:13:09.880 --> 0:13:12.840
<v Speaker 2>within two minutes of each other. One hundred and ninety

0:13:12.840 --> 0:13:17.520
<v Speaker 2>three people died and almost two thousand were injured. Upon investigation,

0:13:17.760 --> 0:13:20.920
<v Speaker 2>Spanish authorities found a fingerprint on one of the plastic

0:13:20.960 --> 0:13:25.160
<v Speaker 2>bags that contained a detonator. They photographed it, then reached

0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:27.520
<v Speaker 2>out to countries around the world to help find the

0:13:27.559 --> 0:13:31.040
<v Speaker 2>culprits of the attack. The US authorities ran the print

0:13:31.040 --> 0:13:35.719
<v Speaker 2>through a database of fingerprints, Twenty possible matches appeared. One

0:13:35.760 --> 0:13:39.320
<v Speaker 2>of them was Brandon Mayfield. But Brandon Mayfield hadn't left

0:13:39.320 --> 0:13:41.959
<v Speaker 2>the country in ten years. He didn't even have a

0:13:42.040 --> 0:13:46.320
<v Speaker 2>valid passport. FBI analysts had no idea how Mayfield would

0:13:46.360 --> 0:13:49.480
<v Speaker 2>have been able to fly to Spain and back completely undetected,

0:13:49.960 --> 0:13:53.360
<v Speaker 2>and yet they pursued him as a suspect. It turns

0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:56.160
<v Speaker 2>out that Brandon had converted to Islam after marrying his

0:13:56.240 --> 0:13:59.960
<v Speaker 2>Egyptian wife, and so American authorities must have seen him

0:14:00.040 --> 0:14:03.200
<v Speaker 2>as a convenient suspect just a few years after nine

0:14:03.240 --> 0:14:07.000
<v Speaker 2>to eleven. In fact, despite evidence that showed that it

0:14:07.040 --> 0:14:10.600
<v Speaker 2>was extremely unlikely that Brandon left the prince on that bag,

0:14:11.000 --> 0:14:14.280
<v Speaker 2>three different FBI agents testified that the prince found in

0:14:14.400 --> 0:14:18.080
<v Speaker 2>Spain matched Mayfields. They said that it matched with one

0:14:18.240 --> 0:14:22.400
<v Speaker 2>hundred percent certainty. They arrested Mayfield, and while he sat

0:14:22.480 --> 0:14:26.120
<v Speaker 2>in jail, the FBI tried to convince the Spanish authorities

0:14:26.160 --> 0:14:29.720
<v Speaker 2>that these prints were Mayfields, but the Spanish police didn't

0:14:29.720 --> 0:14:32.600
<v Speaker 2>see what the FBI saw. The prince didn't seem to

0:14:32.640 --> 0:14:35.920
<v Speaker 2>match it all, from their perspective, a far cry from

0:14:35.960 --> 0:14:38.880
<v Speaker 2>a match with one hundred percent certainty. They said that

0:14:38.920 --> 0:14:41.760
<v Speaker 2>when they compared Mayfield's prince to the ones on the bag,

0:14:42.000 --> 0:14:47.840
<v Speaker 2>it was quote conclusively negative. They eventually did find a

0:14:47.840 --> 0:14:51.040
<v Speaker 2>match for the fingerprints and apprehended the man who left

0:14:51.040 --> 0:14:54.320
<v Speaker 2>them behind during the attack. The FBI admitted that they

0:14:54.360 --> 0:14:58.640
<v Speaker 2>made a mistake in pursuing Mayfield and let him walk free.

0:14:58.800 --> 0:15:02.800
<v Speaker 2>Mayfield is now probably the best known case of mistaken fingerprints,

0:15:03.360 --> 0:15:06.680
<v Speaker 2>but he certainly isn't the only one.

0:15:08.600 --> 0:15:11.680
<v Speaker 4>And we probably can guess if the Spanish police hadn't

0:15:11.720 --> 0:15:14.120
<v Speaker 4>been involved, or if they didn't have DNA. If you

0:15:14.120 --> 0:15:16.800
<v Speaker 4>can imagine this case in the United States, mister Mayfield

0:15:16.840 --> 0:15:20.640
<v Speaker 4>would have been convicted. How would his defense lawyer have

0:15:21.120 --> 0:15:25.520
<v Speaker 4>attacked three FBI agents with all of this experience, who

0:15:25.560 --> 0:15:28.480
<v Speaker 4>claimed with one hundred percent certainty that this print belonged

0:15:28.480 --> 0:15:33.120
<v Speaker 4>to mister Mayfield. But here's the point here. You could

0:15:33.160 --> 0:15:38.360
<v Speaker 4>assume that three fingerprint examiners with decades of experience who

0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:42.760
<v Speaker 4>were certified, followed the process and they were all wrong.

0:15:44.560 --> 0:15:49.000
<v Speaker 2>Joining us today is Mary Moriarty, the chief public Defender

0:15:49.040 --> 0:15:52.400
<v Speaker 2>of Hennepin County in Minnesota, and I'm really excited to

0:15:52.400 --> 0:15:56.280
<v Speaker 2>have her as a guest. She is a staunch defender

0:15:56.320 --> 0:15:59.200
<v Speaker 2>of the rights of the accused, and an outspoken one

0:15:59.200 --> 0:16:02.120
<v Speaker 2>at that, and we need more public defenders like that

0:16:02.200 --> 0:16:05.480
<v Speaker 2>in our country. She has worked to challenge the admission

0:16:05.480 --> 0:16:08.680
<v Speaker 2>of fingerprints. So, Mary, tell us a little bit about

0:16:08.760 --> 0:16:11.400
<v Speaker 2>how you first became interested in fingerprints.

0:16:11.920 --> 0:16:15.600
<v Speaker 4>So it goes back to when I was a child. Actually,

0:16:15.640 --> 0:16:18.200
<v Speaker 4>if you notice, my last name is Moriarty and I

0:16:18.240 --> 0:16:22.760
<v Speaker 4>had a particular interest in Sherlock Holmes, and I got

0:16:23.080 --> 0:16:27.920
<v Speaker 4>for Christmas one year the Hardy Boys book that talked

0:16:27.960 --> 0:16:31.400
<v Speaker 4>about how to collect evidence, and one of the things

0:16:31.400 --> 0:16:35.320
<v Speaker 4>I had in there was a recipe for fingerprint powder,

0:16:35.760 --> 0:16:40.120
<v Speaker 4>and so I would go take my parents' glasses, wineglasses,

0:16:40.120 --> 0:16:42.400
<v Speaker 4>that kind of thing, and I would dust them for prints.

0:16:42.440 --> 0:16:44.520
<v Speaker 4>I would put tape over it, and I would lift

0:16:44.560 --> 0:16:47.320
<v Speaker 4>the print. But I never really thought, well, what do

0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:50.560
<v Speaker 4>you do after that? It was just an interesting exercise

0:16:50.760 --> 0:16:54.400
<v Speaker 4>in taking items that I knew my parents had touched

0:16:54.480 --> 0:16:57.520
<v Speaker 4>and actually trying to lift the prints from them.

0:16:58.320 --> 0:17:00.600
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think I was like screw and around with

0:17:00.600 --> 0:17:03.040
<v Speaker 2>a Rubik's cube and playing with Gi Joe figures. So

0:17:03.080 --> 0:17:06.399
<v Speaker 2>this makes me feel a little bit insecure about what

0:17:06.560 --> 0:17:09.400
<v Speaker 2>I was doing as a kid. But it certainly sounds

0:17:09.480 --> 0:17:13.240
<v Speaker 2>like you were headed towards a career involving forensics in

0:17:13.280 --> 0:17:13.640
<v Speaker 2>the law.

0:17:13.720 --> 0:17:17.040
<v Speaker 4>For a while, my father was actually a public defender,

0:17:17.600 --> 0:17:20.760
<v Speaker 4>and some of my dad's clients were actually my classmates,

0:17:21.160 --> 0:17:26.000
<v Speaker 4>and I got to know them as individuals. There's an

0:17:26.000 --> 0:17:30.840
<v Speaker 4>attempt to otherwise people who become public defender clients, and

0:17:31.680 --> 0:17:34.440
<v Speaker 4>the age old question that public defenders get asked, is

0:17:34.480 --> 0:17:37.400
<v Speaker 4>how can you represent those people? And it's very easy

0:17:37.520 --> 0:17:42.200
<v Speaker 4>because those people are our brothers, our dads, our sisters,

0:17:42.240 --> 0:17:45.359
<v Speaker 4>our cousins. And you look at what those clients have

0:17:45.440 --> 0:17:48.479
<v Speaker 4>been through, and so many of them have a history

0:17:48.480 --> 0:17:52.840
<v Speaker 4>of trauma, you can understand why they find themselves in

0:17:52.880 --> 0:17:56.640
<v Speaker 4>these particular situations. And I think growing up my parents

0:17:56.680 --> 0:18:00.440
<v Speaker 4>fostered a really strong sense of justice in my life.

0:18:00.920 --> 0:18:03.560
<v Speaker 4>In every situation, they would sit me down and say,

0:18:04.040 --> 0:18:06.440
<v Speaker 4>you know, what is the right thing to do here?

0:18:06.960 --> 0:18:10.720
<v Speaker 4>So fast forward when I went to law school. Once

0:18:10.760 --> 0:18:13.080
<v Speaker 4>I finally made that decision, I knew that there was

0:18:13.119 --> 0:18:15.240
<v Speaker 4>only one thing that I wanted to be, and that

0:18:15.400 --> 0:18:17.480
<v Speaker 4>was a public defender. I wanted to be in a

0:18:17.520 --> 0:18:21.199
<v Speaker 4>courtroom representing the same people that I got to know

0:18:21.520 --> 0:18:32.280
<v Speaker 4>through my father's practice.

0:18:33.600 --> 0:18:36.560
<v Speaker 2>All right, so you became an attorney and got a

0:18:36.640 --> 0:18:38.640
<v Speaker 2>chance to right some of the wrongs that you saw

0:18:38.720 --> 0:18:42.440
<v Speaker 2>of the system. But what were your thoughts about fingerprints

0:18:42.480 --> 0:18:43.800
<v Speaker 2>when you first started out?

0:18:44.720 --> 0:18:47.280
<v Speaker 4>I have to acknowledge. So I've been a public defender

0:18:47.320 --> 0:18:50.679
<v Speaker 4>for thirty years, and I certainly had fingerprint cases, and

0:18:50.880 --> 0:18:55.000
<v Speaker 4>I also accepted without questioning that they were based on

0:18:55.080 --> 0:19:00.160
<v Speaker 4>science and that an expert could actually testify that a

0:19:00.200 --> 0:19:04.919
<v Speaker 4>single finger made this print from the crime scene. And

0:19:05.119 --> 0:19:09.440
<v Speaker 4>fingerprints have been accepted as evidence in courts for over

0:19:09.520 --> 0:19:13.719
<v Speaker 4>one hundred years, and people assume that it's reliable.

0:19:14.560 --> 0:19:17.040
<v Speaker 2>So this is something that always fascinated me. I don't

0:19:17.080 --> 0:19:19.520
<v Speaker 2>even know when it was that I began to believe this,

0:19:19.680 --> 0:19:24.000
<v Speaker 2>but even I had come to the belief that fingerprints

0:19:24.000 --> 0:19:26.240
<v Speaker 2>were sort of the gold standard, And that seems to

0:19:26.280 --> 0:19:29.960
<v Speaker 2>be sort of a consistent, you know, collective thought in

0:19:30.000 --> 0:19:34.159
<v Speaker 2>the American psyche that fingerprints are regarded as being just

0:19:34.320 --> 0:19:36.080
<v Speaker 2>really reliable. Why do you think that is?

0:19:36.840 --> 0:19:40.879
<v Speaker 4>They're in popular culture. We've all grown up being given

0:19:40.960 --> 0:19:44.199
<v Speaker 4>a certain perspective on what fingerprints are. When I started

0:19:44.200 --> 0:19:47.159
<v Speaker 4>getting an interest in fingerprints, I would say to people

0:19:47.320 --> 0:19:49.919
<v Speaker 4>outside the legal system, my friends, I would say, you know,

0:19:50.440 --> 0:19:54.160
<v Speaker 4>when you think about how a fingerprint from a crime

0:19:54.240 --> 0:19:57.919
<v Speaker 4>scene is compared to the known print of somebody, what

0:19:57.960 --> 0:20:01.800
<v Speaker 4>does that look like in your mind? We'll always say, well,

0:20:02.119 --> 0:20:05.960
<v Speaker 4>I envision the crime scene print on a screen right

0:20:06.000 --> 0:20:09.320
<v Speaker 4>next to the known fingerprint, and then I see a

0:20:09.400 --> 0:20:12.920
<v Speaker 4>computer merging them and bells going off, going ding ding ding.

0:20:13.000 --> 0:20:16.480
<v Speaker 4>It matches, and that makes sense. It makes sense that

0:20:16.520 --> 0:20:19.240
<v Speaker 4>people would think that. When I tell people that that's

0:20:19.280 --> 0:20:23.240
<v Speaker 4>not at all what happens, they are shocked. Lay people

0:20:23.359 --> 0:20:25.840
<v Speaker 4>hear that there are these databases, and they tend to

0:20:25.880 --> 0:20:28.760
<v Speaker 4>think that everybody's fingerprints are in it. And so I

0:20:28.800 --> 0:20:33.560
<v Speaker 4>think what people believe is that, Okay, you get a

0:20:33.800 --> 0:20:36.520
<v Speaker 4>fingerprint off a gun and you put it in a

0:20:36.600 --> 0:20:39.760
<v Speaker 4>database and the computer comes up with the match and

0:20:39.840 --> 0:20:43.439
<v Speaker 4>that's it. So that's not true at all. So of

0:20:43.520 --> 0:20:47.399
<v Speaker 4>course we're all entrenched in popular culture. We've been told

0:20:47.520 --> 0:20:51.600
<v Speaker 4>for many, many years fingerprints are fantastic, and you know,

0:20:51.640 --> 0:20:55.760
<v Speaker 4>why would anybody take the time to actually look to

0:20:55.840 --> 0:20:57.000
<v Speaker 4>see what they do?

0:20:58.080 --> 0:21:01.120
<v Speaker 2>So tell us a little bit about what they actually do.

0:21:01.520 --> 0:21:04.760
<v Speaker 2>Practically speaking, how does it actually work? What af fingerprint

0:21:04.920 --> 0:21:06.959
<v Speaker 2>examiners look at.

0:21:06.960 --> 0:21:11.320
<v Speaker 4>The way fingerprint examiners actually look at fingerprints is through

0:21:11.359 --> 0:21:16.119
<v Speaker 4>what they call a methodology called ACEV. So it's a

0:21:16.119 --> 0:21:24.000
<v Speaker 4>c slash V, which is analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification.

0:21:24.880 --> 0:21:27.920
<v Speaker 4>So here's a description of what they actually do. Let's

0:21:27.920 --> 0:21:32.320
<v Speaker 4>say a person is shot with a gun. They will

0:21:33.040 --> 0:21:35.840
<v Speaker 4>lift and by lift, I mean they'll look for a

0:21:36.000 --> 0:21:40.159
<v Speaker 4>fingerprint on that gun, and then they will try to

0:21:40.320 --> 0:21:43.760
<v Speaker 4>remove that fingerprint so that they can compare it. So

0:21:43.840 --> 0:21:48.240
<v Speaker 4>the A part is analysis. They are supposed to look

0:21:48.359 --> 0:21:52.840
<v Speaker 4>at that fingerprint to see whether there is enough detail

0:21:53.080 --> 0:21:56.800
<v Speaker 4>in it to go any further. People have seen these

0:21:56.840 --> 0:22:01.119
<v Speaker 4>pictures of somebody rolling their finger over ad of ink,

0:22:01.440 --> 0:22:04.520
<v Speaker 4>and that's how you get the print. That's not what happens.

0:22:04.840 --> 0:22:08.920
<v Speaker 4>When people touch objects. You get a fragment, and sometimes

0:22:08.920 --> 0:22:12.840
<v Speaker 4>it's smeared, and sometimes there's dust on it, sometimes there's oil.

0:22:12.920 --> 0:22:15.720
<v Speaker 4>There are a lot of different factors. And so here's

0:22:15.800 --> 0:22:19.240
<v Speaker 4>the deal. It's not that you're comparing a fully rolled

0:22:19.240 --> 0:22:22.840
<v Speaker 4>fingerprint to a fully rolled fingerprint. You are first looking

0:22:22.920 --> 0:22:26.560
<v Speaker 4>at a fragment of the print, and it is totally

0:22:26.640 --> 0:22:31.800
<v Speaker 4>within the subjectivity, the subjective discretion of a fingerprint analysis

0:22:31.880 --> 0:22:36.159
<v Speaker 4>or examiner to decide whether there is enough information on

0:22:36.320 --> 0:22:39.840
<v Speaker 4>that print to even go ahead and compare it. So

0:22:40.000 --> 0:22:41.000
<v Speaker 4>just think about.

0:22:40.720 --> 0:22:44.679
<v Speaker 2>That, right, that's kind of scary because it's up to

0:22:45.119 --> 0:22:49.280
<v Speaker 2>the judgment call of one analyst on that particular day,

0:22:49.720 --> 0:22:53.239
<v Speaker 2>and I'm quite sure that another analyst looking at the

0:22:53.280 --> 0:22:56.399
<v Speaker 2>same portion of a print might come up with the

0:22:56.400 --> 0:23:00.879
<v Speaker 2>opposite conclusion. So it turns out that the A in

0:23:01.080 --> 0:23:05.760
<v Speaker 2>ACV the very first step is problematic and pretty flawed.

0:23:05.960 --> 0:23:08.920
<v Speaker 2>So the next letter is the C for comparison, where

0:23:08.920 --> 0:23:11.600
<v Speaker 2>you're taking a print left at a crime scene and

0:23:11.680 --> 0:23:14.800
<v Speaker 2>comparing it to a suspects print. So tell us a

0:23:14.840 --> 0:23:16.959
<v Speaker 2>little bit about what that process.

0:23:16.600 --> 0:23:21.840
<v Speaker 4>Entails, Mary, So once you make the decision to go forward,

0:23:22.040 --> 0:23:26.600
<v Speaker 4>then you are onto the C or comparison, and you're

0:23:26.680 --> 0:23:32.119
<v Speaker 4>comparing the fully rolled print to the fragment of a print. So, Josh,

0:23:32.200 --> 0:23:35.280
<v Speaker 4>you might look and compare those two fingerprints and say,

0:23:35.800 --> 0:23:38.919
<v Speaker 4>you know, I see enough here. I see twelve points

0:23:38.920 --> 0:23:42.439
<v Speaker 4>of comparison. That's enough for me to say that this

0:23:42.840 --> 0:23:48.679
<v Speaker 4>is the same person. I might look at it and say, oh,

0:23:48.800 --> 0:23:51.920
<v Speaker 4>I see five points of comparison. I think that's enough

0:23:51.920 --> 0:23:55.439
<v Speaker 4>to declare that it's a match. So, once again, it

0:23:55.520 --> 0:23:58.240
<v Speaker 4>is completely subjective.

0:23:58.600 --> 0:24:03.040
<v Speaker 2>Right, and saying, well, sometimes we think ten points that

0:24:03.080 --> 0:24:06.840
<v Speaker 2>look the same between a rolled print and a fragment

0:24:06.840 --> 0:24:10.199
<v Speaker 2>of a print are enough similarities to declare match, and

0:24:10.280 --> 0:24:13.159
<v Speaker 2>sometimes we think five is enough, And that just doesn't

0:24:13.200 --> 0:24:16.960
<v Speaker 2>seem scientific, it doesn't seem very reliable. And so, Mary,

0:24:17.440 --> 0:24:20.920
<v Speaker 2>something we've been addressing a lot on this podcast is

0:24:21.080 --> 0:24:24.600
<v Speaker 2>the two thousand and nine NAS report. Tell us a

0:24:24.680 --> 0:24:29.000
<v Speaker 2>little bit about what the NAS report said about fingerprints.

0:24:29.920 --> 0:24:33.840
<v Speaker 4>The National Academy of Science is the most prestigious scientific

0:24:33.920 --> 0:24:39.199
<v Speaker 4>body in the United States and they advise Congress on

0:24:39.480 --> 0:24:43.400
<v Speaker 4>issues of science, medicine, pretty much anything you can think

0:24:43.480 --> 0:24:47.560
<v Speaker 4>of when it comes to sciences, and the National Academy

0:24:47.600 --> 0:24:52.920
<v Speaker 4>of Science was asked to examine the comparative forensic sciences.

0:24:53.480 --> 0:24:57.879
<v Speaker 4>It was a groundbreaking report and it was very in depth.

0:24:58.080 --> 0:25:03.320
<v Speaker 4>They took testimony, the elicited research, and it rocked the

0:25:03.359 --> 0:25:07.160
<v Speaker 4>forensic science community. One of the things that you realize

0:25:07.200 --> 0:25:09.800
<v Speaker 4>when you look at the report, if you are a scientist,

0:25:09.880 --> 0:25:12.600
<v Speaker 4>you know that there are certain tenets of science, like

0:25:12.640 --> 0:25:16.040
<v Speaker 4>you have to be able to replicate the process. When

0:25:16.040 --> 0:25:20.920
<v Speaker 4>a scientist does an experiment, they document what they do.

0:25:21.560 --> 0:25:24.359
<v Speaker 4>And the National Academy of Science was very clear that

0:25:24.480 --> 0:25:28.399
<v Speaker 4>fingerprint examiners, as well as any other comparative forensic examiners,

0:25:28.520 --> 0:25:32.200
<v Speaker 4>do not provide documentation. And I found this to be true.

0:25:32.240 --> 0:25:36.240
<v Speaker 4>You would order, you would ask for a fingerprint examiner's file,

0:25:36.840 --> 0:25:40.439
<v Speaker 4>and you wouldn't really see many notes. You wouldn't know

0:25:40.560 --> 0:25:43.040
<v Speaker 4>what they were actually looking at. You might have a

0:25:43.080 --> 0:25:45.760
<v Speaker 4>picture of a fingerprint with some circles on it, but

0:25:46.240 --> 0:25:48.400
<v Speaker 4>you wouldn't know what they were looking at, so there

0:25:48.440 --> 0:25:52.359
<v Speaker 4>was no way to replicate the process that they actually used.

0:25:52.920 --> 0:25:56.200
<v Speaker 4>There was no basis for saying that it came from

0:25:56.200 --> 0:25:59.680
<v Speaker 4>the same source. And most of the people who did fingerprints,

0:26:00.160 --> 0:26:03.080
<v Speaker 4>and probably still do in some places, are not scientists.

0:26:03.320 --> 0:26:06.159
<v Speaker 4>They are not recruited because of their scientific background. They

0:26:06.160 --> 0:26:10.600
<v Speaker 4>are often police officers who were apprenticed into this position

0:26:10.760 --> 0:26:13.440
<v Speaker 4>because the police officer who examined the print was going

0:26:13.480 --> 0:26:18.520
<v Speaker 4>to retire. And then there's the evaluation where you're actually

0:26:18.600 --> 0:26:22.240
<v Speaker 4>making the decision about whether this comes from the same source,

0:26:22.720 --> 0:26:26.440
<v Speaker 4>and there's a lot of controversy there. Fingerprint examiners used

0:26:26.480 --> 0:26:29.520
<v Speaker 4>to come in and say that they had one hundred

0:26:29.520 --> 0:26:32.840
<v Speaker 4>percent certainty, they were one hundred percent certain that this

0:26:33.440 --> 0:26:37.720
<v Speaker 4>print from the crime scene came from this particular client,

0:26:38.480 --> 0:26:40.680
<v Speaker 4>and there was no basis for that. In fact, that's

0:26:40.720 --> 0:26:44.000
<v Speaker 4>not even allowed anymore. And why is there no basis

0:26:44.000 --> 0:26:48.320
<v Speaker 4>for it? You would have to have population statistics, right,

0:26:48.359 --> 0:26:51.200
<v Speaker 4>I mean, that's what DNA has, That's why they come

0:26:51.280 --> 0:26:53.639
<v Speaker 4>up with these numbers. It's one in a million that

0:26:53.680 --> 0:26:57.679
<v Speaker 4>it came from this person. There are no population statistics

0:26:57.720 --> 0:27:00.359
<v Speaker 4>regarding fingerprints.

0:27:10.440 --> 0:27:11.960
<v Speaker 2>Okay, so we're seeing that there are a lot of

0:27:12.000 --> 0:27:15.919
<v Speaker 2>flaws with both analyzing and comparing prints, the A and

0:27:15.960 --> 0:27:18.920
<v Speaker 2>the C and ACE that neither of these steps are

0:27:18.920 --> 0:27:23.840
<v Speaker 2>actually rooted in the scientific methods. And now we're onto E, right, ACE.

0:27:24.960 --> 0:27:28.320
<v Speaker 2>So the E is evaluation where they decide if it's

0:27:28.320 --> 0:27:30.600
<v Speaker 2>a match or not. And so it seems that if

0:27:30.640 --> 0:27:34.680
<v Speaker 2>analyzing and comparing the prints aren't scientifically proven to work,

0:27:35.119 --> 0:27:38.320
<v Speaker 2>the evaluation of those prints and deciding whether or not

0:27:38.359 --> 0:27:40.520
<v Speaker 2>it's a match can't be done to any degree of

0:27:40.640 --> 0:27:44.680
<v Speaker 2>certainty either. That just seems like common sense. So this

0:27:45.000 --> 0:27:49.440
<v Speaker 2>is purely subjective. But there's one last letter in these

0:27:49.480 --> 0:27:53.960
<v Speaker 2>steps that examiners follow, and that's the V for verification. Right,

0:27:54.000 --> 0:27:58.359
<v Speaker 2>it's ACE V. And I'm already skeptical because the first

0:27:58.359 --> 0:28:00.760
<v Speaker 2>three steps of the process or flawed, So how could

0:28:00.760 --> 0:28:02.320
<v Speaker 2>the results be verified?

0:28:03.240 --> 0:28:08.280
<v Speaker 4>Imagine this, A fingerprint examiner would decide that this fragment

0:28:08.280 --> 0:28:11.280
<v Speaker 4>of a print came from this particular person, and then

0:28:11.320 --> 0:28:15.480
<v Speaker 4>they would hand it off to another fingerprint examiner for verification.

0:28:16.280 --> 0:28:19.679
<v Speaker 4>But the issue was it was never blind. So, Josh,

0:28:19.800 --> 0:28:22.159
<v Speaker 4>let's say you and I were fingerprint examiners in the

0:28:22.200 --> 0:28:25.560
<v Speaker 4>same office and I would make a decision about a print,

0:28:25.760 --> 0:28:28.560
<v Speaker 4>and then I would ask you to verify what I

0:28:28.680 --> 0:28:31.720
<v Speaker 4>had done. And the problem with that is you already

0:28:31.840 --> 0:28:35.720
<v Speaker 4>knew what I had done. It wasn't blind. In science,

0:28:35.800 --> 0:28:39.360
<v Speaker 4>they do blind verification, so that the person who's actually

0:28:39.480 --> 0:28:43.880
<v Speaker 4>attempting to verify or replicate what the first person did

0:28:44.040 --> 0:28:47.600
<v Speaker 4>it doesn't know what the result was actually, So the

0:28:47.680 --> 0:28:52.320
<v Speaker 4>fact that the verification wasn't blind led to what people

0:28:52.360 --> 0:28:55.360
<v Speaker 4>call confirmation bias, which is a huge problem.

0:28:55.720 --> 0:28:59.200
<v Speaker 2>All right. So, once the NAS basically said that the

0:28:59.400 --> 0:29:03.800
<v Speaker 2>ACV process is really a recipe for wrongful convictions, this

0:29:03.840 --> 0:29:07.440
<v Speaker 2>should have been an explosion in the criminal justice system

0:29:07.600 --> 0:29:09.920
<v Speaker 2>in the courts, and it just wasn't. And that's, I guess,

0:29:10.000 --> 0:29:13.840
<v Speaker 2>a different issue altogether. We have to keep pushing in

0:29:13.880 --> 0:29:17.280
<v Speaker 2>that regard. But you are still trying to push and

0:29:17.400 --> 0:29:21.320
<v Speaker 2>challenge the admissibility of fingerprints in the criminal justice system.

0:29:21.680 --> 0:29:23.840
<v Speaker 2>And I have to tell you, it just seems like

0:29:24.160 --> 0:29:28.200
<v Speaker 2>it must be so difficult, Mary, because this is not

0:29:28.360 --> 0:29:33.040
<v Speaker 2>like any kind of scientific analysis. But it just feels

0:29:33.120 --> 0:29:38.520
<v Speaker 2>to me that everyone believes fingerprint evidence works. It's so

0:29:38.960 --> 0:29:43.520
<v Speaker 2>ingrained in pop culture, and just like the intrinsic belief

0:29:43.600 --> 0:29:46.920
<v Speaker 2>that people have that we've grown up with. So tell

0:29:46.960 --> 0:29:49.800
<v Speaker 2>me what are some of the problems you've run into

0:29:50.480 --> 0:29:54.480
<v Speaker 2>when trying to call and question this so called science.

0:29:55.120 --> 0:29:58.720
<v Speaker 4>When you're in court litigating this, you're absolutely right. That

0:29:58.960 --> 0:30:01.200
<v Speaker 4>is one of the things you hear from prosecutors and

0:30:01.240 --> 0:30:04.400
<v Speaker 4>you hear from judges. Of course, this is reliable. It's

0:30:04.400 --> 0:30:07.320
<v Speaker 4>been coming into court for decades and decades, and nobody

0:30:07.360 --> 0:30:10.560
<v Speaker 4>has ever challenged it before. So that is a big

0:30:10.640 --> 0:30:15.000
<v Speaker 4>hurdle to get over, much more so than other things

0:30:15.120 --> 0:30:17.560
<v Speaker 4>like bite marks, blood spatter and that sort of thing.

0:30:17.960 --> 0:30:22.440
<v Speaker 4>The court system always lags behind science, and it was

0:30:22.520 --> 0:30:27.880
<v Speaker 4>an uphill climb to convince judges and prosecutors that there

0:30:27.920 --> 0:30:31.240
<v Speaker 4>were problems with fingerprints, or if you could convince them

0:30:31.680 --> 0:30:34.400
<v Speaker 4>that there were problems, you certainly couldn't convince them that

0:30:34.440 --> 0:30:38.200
<v Speaker 4>they should exclude that evidence. In fact, judges and I

0:30:38.240 --> 0:30:40.040
<v Speaker 4>heard this quite a bit, it's like, well, you know,

0:30:40.160 --> 0:30:42.760
<v Speaker 4>let's just let the jury decide. But then you get

0:30:42.800 --> 0:30:46.680
<v Speaker 4>back to the problem of jurors thinking that fingerprints are

0:30:47.360 --> 0:30:49.360
<v Speaker 4>you know, they've been with us forever. They're embedded in

0:30:49.400 --> 0:30:52.640
<v Speaker 4>popular culture, and you have to get over all of

0:30:52.680 --> 0:30:57.200
<v Speaker 4>that history to convince durers that there are indeed issues. Essentially,

0:30:57.640 --> 0:31:02.080
<v Speaker 4>the presumption is that prints are are infallible. In a

0:31:02.160 --> 0:31:04.960
<v Speaker 4>case where your client is supposed to be presumed innocent

0:31:05.200 --> 0:31:08.080
<v Speaker 4>and the prosecution or the government has to prove their

0:31:08.080 --> 0:31:11.920
<v Speaker 4>case beyond reasonable doubt, a significant piece of evidence is

0:31:12.000 --> 0:31:15.360
<v Speaker 4>presumed to be infallible, and you have a lot of

0:31:15.440 --> 0:31:18.200
<v Speaker 4>work to do to try to educate them that that's

0:31:18.240 --> 0:31:19.200
<v Speaker 4>not the case.

0:31:19.640 --> 0:31:22.000
<v Speaker 2>Right, because it turns out that judges are really no

0:31:22.080 --> 0:31:26.800
<v Speaker 2>different than jurors. I mean, in some instances they're more sophisticated,

0:31:26.920 --> 0:31:32.040
<v Speaker 2>not always. They certainly have less time and frankly sometimes

0:31:32.120 --> 0:31:36.680
<v Speaker 2>less patience, but they're sort of not immune to the

0:31:36.720 --> 0:31:40.240
<v Speaker 2>impact of pop culture and precedent. But look, some people

0:31:40.280 --> 0:31:43.000
<v Speaker 2>may be listening to this and thinking, I don't have

0:31:43.000 --> 0:31:44.840
<v Speaker 2>a law degree, but I want to help. I want

0:31:44.920 --> 0:31:47.680
<v Speaker 2>to do something about this. So do you have any

0:31:47.680 --> 0:31:51.960
<v Speaker 2>ideas for what our listeners can do to help I do?

0:31:52.200 --> 0:31:53.920
<v Speaker 4>And I wanted to go back, just for a moment

0:31:54.560 --> 0:31:58.080
<v Speaker 4>to talk about precedent because where I went in my

0:31:58.240 --> 0:32:02.600
<v Speaker 4>mind are our core saying that actual innocence of a

0:32:02.680 --> 0:32:06.600
<v Speaker 4>client on death row doesn't matter because procedure was followed.

0:32:07.200 --> 0:32:12.480
<v Speaker 4>So that should alert your listeners how how much courts

0:32:12.560 --> 0:32:18.360
<v Speaker 4>adhere to precedent and our deferential to previous findings to

0:32:18.400 --> 0:32:22.480
<v Speaker 4>the point where they would authorize that somebody received the

0:32:22.520 --> 0:32:26.240
<v Speaker 4>death penalty because the process was followed. Anyone in the

0:32:26.320 --> 0:32:31.880
<v Speaker 4>public wants the law enforcement, the system to get things right,

0:32:32.320 --> 0:32:34.880
<v Speaker 4>and the only way we can get things right is

0:32:35.000 --> 0:32:39.520
<v Speaker 4>if we understand the limitations of these forensic sciences. So

0:32:39.960 --> 0:32:44.320
<v Speaker 4>people can be writing letters, calling their prosecutors, their policymakers,

0:32:44.360 --> 0:32:48.640
<v Speaker 4>county commissioners, city council members. What are you doing to

0:32:48.840 --> 0:32:54.360
<v Speaker 4>make sure that police officers, that crime lab examiners understand

0:32:54.520 --> 0:32:58.400
<v Speaker 4>this information? And that would be really helpful because people

0:32:58.480 --> 0:33:02.320
<v Speaker 4>really do listen more or to constituents and people in

0:33:02.360 --> 0:33:05.840
<v Speaker 4>the public than they do potentially defense lawyers.

0:33:07.880 --> 0:33:10.800
<v Speaker 2>You know, I've said this before, and I really do

0:33:10.920 --> 0:33:15.400
<v Speaker 2>think it bears repeating. Pressure breaks pipes. What you all

0:33:15.520 --> 0:33:19.480
<v Speaker 2>can do, as listeners of this podcast is take action.

0:33:20.400 --> 0:33:23.160
<v Speaker 2>You're on here because you want to learn something, but

0:33:23.240 --> 0:33:26.280
<v Speaker 2>you also want to do something about it. The way

0:33:26.320 --> 0:33:29.360
<v Speaker 2>that we stop this junk signs from making it into

0:33:29.360 --> 0:33:32.040
<v Speaker 2>our courts is to shine a bright light on it.

0:33:33.000 --> 0:33:36.680
<v Speaker 2>Google the NAS report that we've continually talked about during

0:33:36.720 --> 0:33:41.040
<v Speaker 2>this season. That report details how so many of these

0:33:41.080 --> 0:33:46.800
<v Speaker 2>disciplines of forensic science, including fingerprints, are really problematic. The

0:33:46.920 --> 0:33:51.160
<v Speaker 2>problem is judges don't know about it. Find out who

0:33:51.200 --> 0:33:54.560
<v Speaker 2>your local criminal court judges are and send them the

0:33:54.680 --> 0:33:58.840
<v Speaker 2>NAS report. Highlight the section on fingerprint analysis and send

0:33:58.960 --> 0:34:02.960
<v Speaker 2>to your local criminal court judges. It's only by educating

0:34:03.000 --> 0:34:06.200
<v Speaker 2>our judges and speaking truth to power that we can

0:34:06.320 --> 0:34:09.560
<v Speaker 2>really make change happen. And if you don't think that

0:34:09.719 --> 0:34:12.480
<v Speaker 2>your voice matters, just take a look around the country

0:34:12.560 --> 0:34:16.440
<v Speaker 2>right now. It's the collective voice that is causing change

0:34:16.480 --> 0:34:19.040
<v Speaker 2>to happen, and we can do it one step at

0:34:19.040 --> 0:34:30.080
<v Speaker 2>a time in our criminal justice system. Thank you for

0:34:30.160 --> 0:34:33.000
<v Speaker 2>listening to Wrongful Conviction Junk Science. We're going to be

0:34:33.040 --> 0:34:36.160
<v Speaker 2>taking a little break, but our next episode will be

0:34:36.239 --> 0:34:39.840
<v Speaker 2>out on October seventh. In the meantime, we will be

0:34:40.200 --> 0:34:43.719
<v Speaker 2>keeping a critical and close eye on our criminal justice system.

0:34:44.280 --> 0:34:47.040
<v Speaker 2>We would love to hear how you're doing that along

0:34:47.080 --> 0:34:49.239
<v Speaker 2>with us, So please leave us a comment and let

0:34:49.320 --> 0:34:51.200
<v Speaker 2>us know what you've been up to, and stay on

0:34:51.239 --> 0:34:55.400
<v Speaker 2>the Wrongful Conviction podcast feed as Jason Flamm will continue

0:34:55.440 --> 0:35:02.640
<v Speaker 2>to release episodes between now and October seventh. Wrongful Conviction

0:35:02.760 --> 0:35:05.680
<v Speaker 2>Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts

0:35:05.840 --> 0:35:09.279
<v Speaker 2>and association with Signal Company Number One. Thanks to our

0:35:09.320 --> 0:35:12.560
<v Speaker 2>executive producer Jason Flamm and the team at Signal Company

0:35:12.640 --> 0:35:17.600
<v Speaker 2>Number One executive producer Kevin Wardis and senior producers Karakornhaber

0:35:17.719 --> 0:35:21.400
<v Speaker 2>and Britz Spangler. Our music was composed by Jay Ralph.

0:35:21.960 --> 0:35:25.640
<v Speaker 2>You can follow me on Instagram at dubin Josh, follow

0:35:25.680 --> 0:35:29.480
<v Speaker 2>the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at

0:35:29.480 --> 0:35:32.680
<v Speaker 2>Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong Conviction