Symmetry, Adversarialism, Scholarly Convention, and Latent Print Identification: A Reply to Merlino and Springer

10 Pages Posted: 9 Aug 2010

See all articles by Simon A. Cole

Simon A. Cole

University of California, Irvine - Department of Criminology, Law and Society

Date Written: August 9, 2009

Abstract

This paper is a reply to Merlino and Springer’s reply to my response to their article in a special issue of the journal on the impact on Daubert on forensic science. In this reply, I accept Merlino and Springer’s apology for the appearance of an ad hominem attack on me in their article and make my own apologies for some misconstruals I made of their position. However, I argue that their reply continues to mischaracterize the testimony that I gave in the case at issue, People v. Hyatt, as well as the position of so-called “critics” of latent print identification in general. The reply further notes that, paradoxically, Merlino and Springer appear to agree with the testimony I gave: that the reliability of latent print identification has not been empirically validated. The reply closes with some reflections that suggest that the superficially appealing tendency to bash “adversarialism” in debates over expert evidence, in fact, be somewhat misguided.

Keywords: fingerprint, Merlino, valdity, adversarialism, Daubert, Hyatt, expert evidence

Suggested Citation

Cole, Simon A., Symmetry, Adversarialism, Scholarly Convention, and Latent Print Identification: A Reply to Merlino and Springer (August 9, 2009). Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1656105

Simon A. Cole (Contact Author)

University of California, Irvine - Department of Criminology, Law and Society ( email )

2340 Social Ecology 2, RM
Irvine, CA 92697
949-824-1443 (Phone)
949-824-3001 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.seweb.uci.edu/faculty/cole/

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
29
Abstract Views
1,020
PlumX Metrics