|
|
|
(This is a reprint of a letter on United States Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation letterhead. Thanks to Dale Falicon/L.A.S.D.
for this submission of historical significance, it provides answers to
several questions which have been presented in the past.)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE March 12, 1958
RE: POINTS OF IDENTITY IN LATENT PRINTS
Dear Lieutenant Blake:
I have your letter of March 4, 1958, to Special Agent G.J. Engert, concerning points of identity in latent fingerprints. Under the prevailing rules of evidence in the United States, the courts do not have the discretionary power to determine how many points of identity are necessary for an identification. The FBI is not in possession of nor does it know of any court decision requiring twelve points or any specific number of points of identity. Under the rules of evidence, fingerprint testimony is expert testimony and as such is opinion evidence. Therefore, anyone who qualifies in court as an expert may testify as to his opinion regarding a comparison of two prints regardless of the number of points. FBI experts have testified in court to as few as seven points, and many times, in both Federal and state courts, to less than twelve points. It is known that some departments, and even the FBI at one time, have a standard that the fingerprint expert must find at least twelve points before being permitted to testify, merely as a precaution, feeling that if the expert can find twelve points he will not be mistaken as to the identification. The FBI discontinued the policy of requiring twelve points a number of years ago because experience, acquired through many years of handling millions of fingerprints, has shown that positive identifications can be made on less than twelve points. Each case is decided individually. Weight is given not only as to the number of points, but also as to their clarity, type, and relation to each other.
I hope that you will find the above information is of assistance to you. Sincerely yours,
John Edgar Hoover
This letter was reprinted in “THE PRINT” |