NJ Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Reliability of Fingerprint Evidence

In a landmark decision that could have a far reaching impact on forensic practices and expert testimony admissibility standards, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered a hearing on the reliability of fingerprint evidence based on scientific advancements.

A Morgan Lewis team represented the Innocence Project’s national strategic litigation team, serving as amici in the case of State v. French Lee urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to appoint a Special Adjudicator to assist the trial court in assessing the reliability and admissibility of fingerprint evidence and to draft a model jury charge governing the evaluation of such evidence and related testimony.[1] In a landmark, unanimous decision,[2] the Supreme Court agreed, ordering a hearing on the admissibility and reliability of fingerprint evidence and further action to ensure the reliability of such evidence in future trials, marking a significant development in forensic standards for criminal trials in the state.

The court’s decision responds to new developments in forensic science and growing concerns about the scientific validity of fingerprint analysis, with significant implications for prosecutors, defense counsel, and organizations relying on forensic evidence. The decision could lead other state and federal courts across the country to reevaluate the admissibility of fingerprint evidence.

Key Takeaways

• The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that a trial court should have assessed the reliability of fingerprint evidence in a burglary trial based on scientific advancements.
• The court will appoint a Special Adjudicator to determine whether fingerprint evidence meets current admissibility standards and whether revised jury instructions are warranted.
• The decision reflects a shift from historical acceptance of fingerprint evidence toward rigorous scientific scrutiny, potentially impacting how forensic evidence is used in New Jersey courts and nationwide.

BACKGROUND

The defendant in State v. French Lee, Mr. Lee, was convicted of two counts of burglary, where the sole evidence linking him to the crimes was latent fingerprint analysis. At trial, defense counsel from the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender challenged the admissibility of the fingerprint evidence, citing the 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report and the 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report, both of which highlight concerns regarding the reliability, subjectivity, and error rates of fingerprint analysis.

The state relied on more than 100 years of judicial acceptance of fingerprint evidence under the Frye standard, emphasizing its history in New Jersey and federal courts. The trial court admitted the evidence without a pretrial hearing, leading the Appellate Division to reverse and mandate a reliability hearing at the urging of the Defendant and the Innocence Project. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s review followed this reversal and addressed evolving standards for forensic evidence.

Until 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court relied on the Frye standard to assess reliability of expert testimony in criminal cases. That standard focused on general acceptance within the field of the proposed expert testimony. The current inquiry to assess reliability in criminal cases was established in State v. Olenowski (Olenowski I),[3] which invites courts to consider a non-exclusive list of factors known as the “Daubert factors,” derived from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.[4]

Olenowski I declined to disturb rulings based on the Frye standard but noted that when “the scientific reliability underlying the evidence has changed,” evidence that had previously been approved should be evaluated under the revised standard.[5]

In its amicus brief, the Innocence Project highlighted the risk of wrongful convictions due to flawed forensic evidence and the tendency of jurors to overvalue expert testimony. The parties detailed a series of substantive concerns about the reliability of fingerprint evidence, including whether the analysis is repeatable among examiners, the subjective nature of the discipline, the absence of objective measures or a uniform set of guidelines to establish an identification, recently identified error rates, assumptions about whether fingerprints are unique and do not change, confirmation bias, and the lack of empirical testing.

The parties explained that scientific consensus was evolving on fingerprint evidence, and stressed that legal precedent is not a proxy for scientific validity. The Innocence Project also advocated for reforms to fingerprint evidence practices in New Jersey, urging the court to implement meaningful voir dire of potential jurors on bias towards accepting forensic evidence, strict guardrails on the presentation of fingerprint evidence and expert testimony, and comprehensive jury instructions to address the risks inherent in fingerprint analysis.

CORE LEGAL DEVELOPMENT

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, reaffirmed the trial court’s obligation to act as a gatekeeper for expert testimony, ensuring that only scientifically reliable evidence is presented to juries. The court found that the issues raised by defendant and amici presented legitimate questions about the reliability of fingerprint evidence and warranted a full plenary hearing.

The court ordered the appointment of a Special Adjudicator[6] to conduct a hearing to determine (1) whether the fingerprint evidence presented at trial satisfies the requirements of Olenowski I; (2) if it does, whether any limitations or guardrails should apply to the admission of fingerprint evidence; and (3) if so, what those limitations or guardrails should be, including whether revised model jury charges are necessary. The court deferred ruling on the merits of the conviction pending the outcome of the hearing and retained jurisdiction, with periodic updates. The court held that amici, including the Innocence Project, may participate in the Special Adjudicator’s proceedings.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s order reaffirms the important role trial courts play in evaluating evidence in trials. It underscores that courts must assess fingerprint evidence, like all other forensic evidence, based on ever-evolving scientific and technical standards and developments, rather than rely on historical practices and acceptance.

CONCLUSION

This decision signals a paradigm shift in New Jersey’s approach to forensic evidence, with practical implications for criminal litigation, expert testimony, and broader forensic practices. This development may reshape forensic practices and expert testimony admissibility in New Jersey and federal and state courts around the country.