The Dangers of Convictions Based on a Single Piece of Forensic Evidence




forensic evidence, wrongful conviction, expert witness, pattern-matching methods, criminal justice system


The overall goal of the criminal justice system is to ensure that perpetrators of crimes are duly punished and that victims of crimes are duly exonerated. As part of the effort to achieve this goal, the forensic disciplines have become very important in criminal investigations and prosecutions in identifying the guilty and in exonerating the innocent. There is a growing number of cases where people have been convicted based on a single piece of forensic evidence. However, some of the convictions have been found to be wrong, largely, due to the lack of adequate scientific validation of the forensic science methods. Some of these methods include latent fingerprint analysis, bite mark analysis, microscopic hair analysis and firearms identification. This article critically examines the application of forensic evidence in criminal prosecutions and highlights the dangers of convictions based on a single piece of forensic evidence. The findings of recent reports, such as, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2009 Report and President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2016 Report, confirm the critical role and broad scope of these forensic pattern-matching methods. The reports also indicate flaws that affect the accuracy of these methods, such as, inadequate scientific validation, coincidental results (erroneous match), human, laboratory and interpretive errors etc. Therefore, this article argues that the court should follow a cautionary approach when relying on a single piece of forensic evidence and that strong corroboration with other forms of evidence linking the accused to the crime should be required.




Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Adebola Olufunmi Olaborede, University of Fort Hare

Post-Doctoral Research Fellow Law, Science and Justice Research Niche Area, Nelson R. Mandela School of Law University of Fort Hare

Lirieka Meintjes-van der Walt, University of Fort Hare

Adjunct Professor of Law, Leader Law, Science and Justice Research Niche Area, Nelson R. Mandela School of Law, University of Fort Hare




Beecher-Monas E Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge University Press New York 2007)

Bernstein D 1996 "Junk Science in the United States and the Commonwealth" 1996 Yale J Int'l L 124-182

Champod C and Chamberlain P "Fingerprints" in Fraser J and Williams R (eds) Handbook of Forensic Science (Willan Cullompton 2009) 57-83

Chandler D "The Reliability and Admissibility of Fingerprint and Bitemark Analyses" 2013-2014 Buff Pub Int LJ 41-62

Chiwara MD A Review of Five International Forensic Reports: Fingerprint Evidence Lessons for South African Lawyers (LLM-dissertation University of Fort Hare 2018)

Cole S "More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification" 2004-2005 J Crim L & Criminology 985-1078

Cole S "The Prevalence and Potential Causes of Wrongful Conviction" 2006 Golden Gate UL Rev 39-105

Cooley MC and Oberfield SG "Increasing Forensic Evidence's Reliability and Minimising Wrongful Convictions: Applying Daubert isn't the Only Problem" 2013 Tulsa L Rev 285-380

Dawson J "Forensic Science: A Time of Transformation" 2016 Natl Inst Justice J 1-6

Edmond G and Meintjes-van der Walt L ʹʹBlind Justice? Forensic Science and the Use of Closed-circuit Television Images as Identification Evidence in South Africaʹʹ 2014 SALJ 109-148

Garrett B and Neufeld P "Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions" 2009 Va L Rev 1-97

Giannelli PC "The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v the United States, a Half-Century Later" 1980 Colum L Rev 1197-1250

Giannelli PC "Microscopic Hair Comparisons: A Cautionary Tale - Working Paper 2010-17" 2010 Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies 1-24

Giannelli PC "Scientific Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions: A Retrospective" 2010 Faculty Publications 1143-1144

Griffin L ʹʹThe Correction of Wrongful Convictions: A Comparative Perspective" 2001 Am U Int'l L Rev 1241-1308

Grzybowski R et al "Firearm/Toolmark Identification: Passing the Reliability Test inder Federal and State Evidentiary Standards" 2003 AFTE Journal 1-34

Hornby AS Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 9th ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2015)

Kaplan A and Puracal J ʹʹIt's not a Match: Why the Law can't Let Go of Junk Scienceʹʹ 2018 Alb L Rev 895-939

Kaye DH ʹʹProbability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academiesʹʹ 2010 Brook L Rev 1163-1185

Koehler JJ "Fingerprint Error Rates and Proficiency Tests: What they are and Why they Matter" 2008 Hastings Law Journal 1077-1098

Langbein HJ The Origin of Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford University Press Oxford 2003)

Meintjes-van der Walt L "Fingerprint Evidence: Probing Myth and Reality" 2006 SACJ 152-172

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Research Press Washington DC 2009)

Newton D DNA Evidence and Forensic Science (Infobase New York 2008)

Saks MJ et al "Forensic Bitemark Identification: Weak Foundations, Exaggerated Claims" 2016 JLB 538-575

Saks MJ and Koehler JJ "The Individualisation Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence" 2008 Vand L Rev 199-219

Sangero B "Safety from Flawed Forensic Sciences Evidence" 2018 Ga St UL Rev 1129-1220

Sangero B and Halpert M "Why a Conviction should not be Based on a Single Piece of Evidence: A Proposal for Reform" 2007 Jurimetrics J 43-94

Schwikkard PJ and Van der Merwe SE Principles of Evidence 4th ed (Juta Cape Town 2016)

Zeffertt DT and Paizes AP The South African Law of Evidence 3rd ed (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2009)

Case law

AR v Road Accident Fund 2018 ZAGPJHC 637 (29 November 2018)

B v S 2016 ZAFSHC 100 (12 May 2016)

Brooks v State 748 So 2d 736 (Miss 1999)

Burke v Town of Walpole 405 F 3d 66 (1st Cir 2005)

Carter v State 766 NE 2d 377 (Ind 2002)

Cele v S 2010 ZAKZPHC 26 (25 May 2010)

Commonwealth v Cowans 756 NE 2D 622 (Mass App Ct 2001)

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc 1993 509 US 579

Frye v United States 293 F 1013 (DC Cir 1923)

Green v R 1971 126 CLR 28

Holtzhauzen v Roodt 1997 4 SA 766 (W)

Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael 1999 526 US 137

Mckie v Scottish Ministers 2006 SC 528

Nduna v S 2010 ZASCA 120 (30 September 2010)

Nkuna v S 2018 ZALMPPHC 21 (11 May 2018)

People v Brown 618 NYS 2d 188, 188 (NY Co Ct 1994), aff'd, 600 NYS 2d 593 (NY App Div 4th Dept 1993)

Ramirez v State of Florida SC92975 (20 December 2001)

Regina v Adams 1996 2 Cr App R 467

R v W 1949 3 SA 773 (AD)

S v Artman 1968 3 SA 339 (A)

S v Baloyi 2000 2 SA 425 (CC)

S v Ganie 1967 4 SA 203 (N)

S v Gokool 1965 3 SA 461 (N)

S v Gumede1982 4 SA 561 (T)

S v Mbatha 2018 ZAGPJHC 502 (13 August 2018)

S v Msane 1977 4 SA 758 (N)

S v Nala 1965 4 SA 360 (A)

S v Nyathe 1988 2 SA 211 (O)

S v Sauls 1981 3 SA 172 (A)

S v Stevens 2005 1 All SA 1 (SCA)

State v Krone 897 P 2d 621 (Ariz 1995)

State v West 877 A 2d 787 (Conn 2005)

Twine v Naidoo 2018 1 All SA 297 (GJ)

The Queen v Dookheea 2017 HCA 36; 91 ALJR 960

United States v Bryon Mitchell 2004 365 F 3d 215 (3rd Cir)

United States v Green 405 F Supp 2d 104 (D Mass 2005)

United States v Monteiro 407 F Supp 2d 351 (D Mass 2006)

United States v Scheffer 1998 523 US 303

United States v William 1978 583 F 2d 1194

Williamson v State 812 P 2d 384 (Okla Crim App 1991)


South Africa

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

United States

Federal Rules of Evidence, 1975 (as amended)

International instruments

African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (1981)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Internet sources

Bell S et al 2018 A Call for More Science in Forensic Science - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences accessed 31 October 2018

Budowle B, Buscaglia J and Swartz Perlman R 2006 Review of the Scientific Basis for Friction Ridge Skin Comparisons as a Means of Identification: Committee Findings and Recommendations

archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2006/research/2006_01_research02.htm accessed 25 January 2019

Connors E 1996 et al Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence after Trial - Research Report by the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice accessed 7 November 2018

The Honourable Thomas A Cromwell 2011 The Challenges of Scientific Evidence accessed 5 March 2019

Elster N 2017 How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions accessed 17 February 2019

Epstein R date unknown Fingerprints Meet Daubert: The Myth of Fingerprint ʹScienceʹ is Revealed accessed 11 February 2019

Federal Bureau of Investigation 2015 FBI Testimony on Microscopic Hair Analysis Contained Errors in at Least 90 Percent of Cases in Ongoing Review accessed 6 March 2020

Hsu SS 2015 FBI Admits Flaws in Hair Analysis over Decades

c22d03885a0e accessed 28 March 2019

Kadane J date unknown Fingerprint Science https://pdfs. accessed 13 March 2019

Kaye DH 2015 Marching toward Improved Latent Fingerprint Testimony at the Army's Defence Forensic Science Centre accessed 13 February 2019

Kaye DH et al 2012 Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach. The Report of the Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis accessed 6 March 2020

Mnookin JL "Fingerprint: Not a Gold Standardʹʹ 2003 Issues in Science and Technology accessed 11 February 2019

Mnookin JL 2018 The Uncertain Future of Forensic Science accessed 3 May 2019

National Forensic Science Technology Center date unknown A Simple Guide to Fingerprint Analysis http://www.forensicscience accessed 27 November 2018

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 2016 Report to the President, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods https://obamawhite accessed 2 November 2018

Raphaely C 2018 Getting it Wrong - Guilty until Proven Innocent accessed 16 November 2018

Rea S 2017 Fingerprint Evidence is Circumstantial, Not an Identification accessed 4 March 2020

Schwartz A 2008 Challenging Firearms and Toolmark Identification: Part Two accessed 6 March 2020

United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General 2006 A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case accessed 28 January 2018

United States Innocence Project date unknown Misapplication of Forensic Science accessed 16 November 2018

United State Innocence Project 2016 Wrongful Convictions Involving Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science that were Later Overturned Through DNA Testing

uploads/2016/02/DNA_Exonerations_Forensic_Science.pdf accessed 16 November 2018



How to Cite

Olaborede, A. O., & Meintjes-van der Walt, L. (2020). The Dangers of Convictions Based on a Single Piece of Forensic Evidence. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 23, 1–38.




Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.