This article suggests that lawyers and courts are largely oblivious to scientific insights regarding the value and limitations of latent fingerprint evidence. It proceeds through a detailed historical analysis of the way fingerprint evidence has been reported and challenged. It compares legal responses with mainstream scientific research. Our analysis shows that fingerprint evidence is routinely equated with categorical proof of identity notwithstanding scientific warnings that such an approach is ‘indefensible’. We find that legal challenges to latent fingerprint evidence have been uniformly focused on adjectival issues (e.g. compliance with enabling legislation), leaving the validity and accuracy of this subjective comparison technique virtually unexamined since its first reception at the very beginning of the twentieth century. Lack of legal engagement with validity, error and scientific research suggest that adversarial procedures have not worked effectively to secure scientifically reliable expert evidence and that legal personnel struggle with elementary scientific reasoning.

中文翻译：

---

指纹比较和对抗主义：科学和历史证据

本文建议律师和法院在很大程度上忽略了有关潜在指纹证据的价值和局限性的科学见解。它通过对指纹证据的报告和质疑方式进行详细的历史分析来进行。它将法律回应与主流科学研究进行比较。我们的分析表明，尽管科学警告说这种方法“不可辩驳”，但指纹证据通常与身份的分类证据等同。我们发现，对潜在指纹证据的法律挑战一直集中于形容词问题（例如，遵守授权立法），而自20世纪初首次接受以来，这种主观比较技术的有效性和准确性几乎没有得到检验。