Passage A In this appeal of his criminal conviction, the defendant challenges the fingerprint evidence used against him at trial, claiming that fingerprint identification theory has not been adequately tested. He cites the inability of the fingerprint examiner who incriminated establishing that no two persons have identical fingerprints.
The defendant claims that there are no established error rates revealing how often fingerprint examiners incorrectly identify a fingerprint as a particular person’s, and asserts that fingerprint examiners lack uniform, objective standards. He cites testimony given by the fingerprint examiner at trial that there of “points of identification” required for a positive identification.
Although fingerprint identification has not attained the status of scientific law, it has been used in criminal trials for 100 years, and experts have long concurred about its reliability. While further testing and the development of even more consistent standards may be desirable, this court sees no that has so ably withstood the test of time.
While it may be true that different agencies require different degrees of correlation before permitting a positive identification, fingerprint examiners are held to a consistent “points and characteristics” approach to identification. As the fingerprint expert testified at the defendant’s trial, examiners are regularly subjected to testing and proficiency requirements, and uniform standards discretion in crediting testimony that fingerprint identification has an exceedingly low error rate.
Passage B Fingerprint examiners lack objective standards for evaluating whether two prints “match.” There is simply no consensus about what constitutes a sufficient basis for identification. Some examiners use a “point-counting” method that entails counting the number of similar “ridge” characteristics on prints, but there is no fixed requirement about how many is no generally agreed-on standard for determining precisely when to declare a match.
Although we know that different individuals can share certain ridge characteristics, the chance of two individuals sharing any given number of identifying characteristics is unknown. How likely is it that two people could have four points of resemblance, or five, or eight? Moreover, fingerprints used in forensic identification are typically partial and such questions decisively, yet the answers are critical to evaluating the value of fingerprint evidence.
The error rate for fingerprint identification in actual practice has received little systematic study. How often do fingerprint examiners mistakenly declare a match? Although some proficiency tests show examiners making few or no errors, these tests have been criticized a 34 percent rate of erroneous identification.
What this question is testing
Your task
Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.
Common trap
Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.
Winning move
Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.