Independent verification and quality control in forensic fingerprint examination: managing confirmation bias using the ITELC model for auxiliary forensic expert practice in Mexico
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71112/8pw9jw29Keywords:
independent verification, confirmation bias, forensic fingerprint examination, quality control, ACE-V, human factors, auxiliary forensic expertiseAbstract
Fingerprint verification loses quality-control value when the second examiner knows the first examiner’s conclusion, notes, or selected candidate. This article develops and formalizes the ITELC-Verification protocol to separate blind preparation, independent analysis, sequential comparison, sealed evaluation, and documented discrepancy resolution. Using an applied methodological-development design and a targeted normative synthesis of standards, empirical studies, and procedural rules, it distinguishes technical review from blind verification, integrates three auditable instruments—FCI, MVC, and PED—and proposes risk-proportionate criteria. The protocol is intended to reduce contextual contamination, preserve traceability, and strengthen evidentiary challenge in Mexican auxiliary forensic practice, particularly in Tamaulipas, while remaining suitable for prospective empirical validation.
Downloads
References
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Academy Standards Board. (2022a). ANSI/ASB Best Practice Recommendation 142: Best practice recommendations for the resolution of conflicts in friction ridge examination (1st ed.). AAFS Standards Board.
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Academy Standards Board. (2022b). ANSI/ASB Best Practice Recommendation 144: Best practice recommendations for the verification component in friction ridge examination (1st ed.; Addendum 1, 2024). AAFS Standards Board.
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Academy Standards Board. (2022c). ASB Technical Report 016: Terminology related to friction ridge examination (1st ed.). AAFS Standards Board.
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Academy Standards Board. (2024). ANSI/ASB Standard 143: Standard for technical review in friction ridge examination (1st ed.). AAFS Standards Board.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2017). Forensic science assessments: A quality and gap analysis—Latent fingerprint examination. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/reports/Latent%20Fingerprint%20Report%20FINAL%209_14.pdf
Busey, T. A., & Dror, I. E. (2011). Special abilities and vulnerabilities in forensic expertise. In A. McRoberts (Ed.), The fingerprint sourcebook (Chap. 15). National Institute of Justice.
Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión. (2025). Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales (última reforma publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 28 de noviembre de 2025). https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/CNPP.pdf
Champod, C., Lennard, C., Margot, P., & Stoilovic, M. (2004). Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions. CRC Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203485040
Dror, I. E., & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(4), 600–616.
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
Dror, I. E., Champod, C., Langenburg, G., Charlton, D., Hunt, H., & Rosenthal, R. (2011). Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a “target” comparison. Forensic Science International, 208(1–3), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013
Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2021). Linear Sequential Unmasking–Expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3, 100161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161
Dror, I. E., Péron, A. E., Hind, S.-L., & Charlton, D. (2005). When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 799–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1130
Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M., & Risinger, M. (2015). Letter to the Editor—Context management toolbox: A Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(4), 1111–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12805 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12805
Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis. (2012). Latent print examination and human factors: Improving the practice through a systems approach (NISTIR 7842). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7842 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7842
Found, B., & Ganas, J. (2013). The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Science & Justice, 53(2), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.10.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.10.004
International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO/IEC 17025:2017: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018a). ISO 21043-1:2018: Forensic sciences—Part 1: Terms and definitions.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018b). ISO 21043-2:2018: Forensic sciences—Part 2: Recognition, recording, collecting and storage of items.
International Organization for Standardization. (2025). ISO 21043-4:2025: Forensic sciences—Part 4: Interpretation.
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001
Kunkler, K. S., & Roy, T. (2023). Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: Practical actions for forensic science practitioners. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 7, 100341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100341 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100341
Langenburg, G., Champod, C., & Wertheim, P. (2009). Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(3), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/12589
Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science. (2025). Blind verifications in friction ridge examinations [Research and development need]. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Poder Judicial del Estado de Tamaulipas. (2026). Acuerdo General 7/2026: Lista Oficial de Peritas y Peritos Auxiliares de la Administración de Justicia. https://pjetam.gob.mx/lista-oficial-de-peritos-auxiliares-de-la-administracion-de-justicia-del-poder-judicial-del-estado-de-tamaulipas/
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Executive Office of the President.
Quigley-McBride, A., Dror, I. E., Roy, T., Garrett, B. L., & Kukucka, J. (2022). A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: Using Linear Sequential Unmasking–Expanded (LSU-E) in casework. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 4, 100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100216
Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology. (2011). Standard for the application of blind verification of friction ridge examinations (Version 1.0).
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A. (2011). Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7733–7738. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018707108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018707108
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A. (2012). Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLOS ONE, 7(3), e32800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032800 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032800
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. (2006). A review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield case (Unclassified and redacted). U.S. Department of Justice.
Nota explicativa
En este artículo, “ciega” significa desconocimiento de las decisiones, conclusiones y datos observados por el primer examinador; no supone ausencia total de información. El verificador puede recibir datos técnicos del soporte, matriz o revelado cuando sean necesarios, siempre que el gatekeeper justifique su entrega, documente el momento de acceso y evite revelar información de identidad o de resultado antes del sellado.
Agradecimientos
El autor agradece a la comunidad científica y profesional cuyas contribuciones en dactiloscopía forense, factores humanos y aseguramiento de la calidad han orientado este análisis. Las propuestas, interpretaciones y conclusiones son responsabilidad exclusiva del autor.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Alfredo García Anaya (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
