My previous column discussed the 2009 National Research Council report on forensic science and the 2012 National Institute of Standards and Technology report on fingerprint examination. [NLJ, July 23] The column pointed out that the law is gaining a better appreciation of the extent to which subjective factors are embedded in expert processes and can affect the expert’s ultimate conclusion. How should the law respond to this growing appreciation? In part, the answer depends on the identity of the legal actor responding.
In particular, how should legislators and laboratory directors respond? To begin with, they should authorize new research to identify the subjective elements embedded in expert methods. That was one of the primary recommendations of the 2012 NIST report. The composition of the NIST working group is suggestive of the type of collaborative research that is necessary. The working group included human-factors experts as well as fingerprint examiners. Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach x-xi (2012). In some cases, even experienced experts may not realize the human factor embedded in a step of an expert methodology. Human factors experts can bring a different perspective to bear to enable the forensic expert to identify the subjective element.
