Influential Cases
The FBI Identification Division helped solidify fingerprinting's presence as a medium for criminal identification. However, the system's validity was repeatedly questioned, leading to judicial cases that helped progress fingerprinting's accuracy for criminal identification.
Piquett v. United States (1936)"Appellant was convicted on the charge of conspiracy to violate a law of the United States...It is further urged by appellant that the proof of the agreement to alter Van Meter's facial features and finger lines...There was only one conclusion at which the jury could rationally arrive from the fact that appellant and his co-conspirators were altering Van Meter's finger lines, and that was that they were trying to conceal his identity." |
"This court will take judicial knowledge of the well recognized fact that identification by finger prints is about the surest method known, and that it is in universal use in the detection of criminals." |
Grice v. State (1941)"At Hamilton, Texas, on September 15, 1940...Newton Grice was convicted of burglary of a cafe. The principal evidence against [the] defendant was a finger print that had been left on a pane of glass which had been removed from one of the cafe doors. Experts at the State Department of Public Safety at Austin examined this print, photo graphed and enlarged it and compared it with record prints of Grice; Grice's prints were found to be identical with the print at the crime scene...At trial, Grice's defense was an alibi, but conviction followed and defendant was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary. Defendant appealed. The question before the appeals court was whether identification by finger prints, unaided by other evidence, is sufficiently reliable when believed by a jury to warrant their conclusion that the accused was present and made such print." |
"It has occurred...that instead of the state being called upon to offer proof that no two finger prints are alike, it may now be considered in order for those taking the opposing view to assume the burden of proving their position." |
United States v. Magee (1958)"The evidence showed that a man held up the National Bank and Trust Company of South Bend, Lincolnway West Branch [on January 15, 1957]. Several witnesses for the government testified that they had seen the robber and that defendant was that person...The general rule is that evidence that accused has committed another crime independent of, and unconnected with, the one on trial is inadmissible; it is not competent to prove one crime by proving another...There are certain exceptions, to the general rule, such as those recognized by us in several cases relied on by the government...It showed that on September 18, 1953, a fingerprint was found on a newspaper which was wrapped around an envelope containing heroin...There was also evidence that, in a transaction on December 9, 1953, the outer wrapping of a package containing narcotics was a sheet of newspaper which contained two fingerprints. The evidence showed that all of these prints were identical with those of Lacullo which were taken by the government on March 16, 1954." |
"Obviously there can be no more reliable evidence of the identity of a defendant than his own fingerprints." |