Examining Wrongful Convictions Based on Fingerprint Evidence

Abstract

Fingerprint evidence has long been seen as a cornerstone of forensic science, valued for its unique traits and reliability. However, some wrongful conviction cases reveal significant flaws in how fingerprint evidence is collected, interpreted, and relied upon, highlighting its limitations. This article reviews key cases like those of Brandon Mayfield, Stephen Cowans, and Shirley McKie, where mistaken interpretations led to serious injustices. Contributing factors to these erroneous convictions include unclear or incomplete prints, personal biases, laboratory errors, and systemic issues within fingerprint databases. Moreover, cognitive biases can influence analysts' judgments, especially in high-stress scenarios. To improve accuracy and ensure justice, the forensic field must refine evidence collection techniques, enhance examiner training, establish reliable databases, include independent witnesses in searches and seizures, record processes with video documentation from scene of crime to the forensic laboratory, and support fingerprint evidence with additional methods along with improved protocols, blind testing, and independent verification to mitigate risks and preserve the reliability of fingerprint evidence in the justice system. While fingerprints remain vital in forensic investigations, it’s crucial to reevaluate their use to prevent future wrongful convictions.