| Abstrakt: |
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) expert testimony on fingerprint impression evidence was challenged by defense counsel, who called Dr. Simon Cole as an expert witness in the retrial of Timothy Bornyk, who was charged with a residential break and enter. The charge was based on a single fingerprint that was recovered from the crime scene. At the original trial, Justice Funt acquitted the accused, citing reports that were critical of fingerprint practices and perceived troubling aspects of the fingerprint testimony. The Crown's appeal was allowed because the trial judge had relied upon independently researched literature that was not properly tested in evidence, and he conducted an unguided fingerprint comparison. For the retrial, the RCMP recommended that scientific studies and ongoing standards development work in the fingerprint community since the National Academies of Science (NAS) report should be presented to the court. The Crown's strategy changed. First, the fingerprint examiner described RCMP policy on proficiency tests, use of the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST) Quality Table and Sufficiency Graph to assess quality and quantity of the minutiae in the latent print, erroneous identifications, and error rate studies. Second, key scientific publications and international best practices were introduced to the court. Finally, the verifier testified. Ten days later, Mr. Bornyk was found guilty. This article summarizes the trials, the impact of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods on expert testimony, and provides an explanation of an incorrect error rate reproduced by PCAST. As the RCMP learn from this court challenge, potential future changes to RCMP research, policy, and training are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
