Amicus Brief: French Lee
State of New Jersey v. French Lee
Filing Date
December 5, 2025
Charge
Third-Degree Burglary
Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Partners
Wilson Center for Science and Justice, Simon Cole, Brandon Garrett
Summary
Kate Judson of CIFS filed this amicus brief with the Wilson Center for Science and Justice and Professors Simon Cole and Brandon Garrett in the Supreme Court of New Jersey in French Lee’s case to highlight the issues surrounding fingerprint evidence. We agree with the Appellate Division’s ruling that it is important to conduct hearings to examine the reliability of forensic evidence like fingerprint evidence.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
As amici, we write to encourage this Court to affirm the Appellate Division and to remand for hearings examining the reliability of this type of evidence. We describe a range of reliability related issues that should be examined at such a hearing. And we further explore why examining the reliability of latent fingerprint comparison methods, the application of those methods and the reliability of the examiner’s work, and the reliability of the conclusions reached, should be routinely and carefully examined before a criminal trial.
New Jersey courts have long carefully examined forensic evidence and taken an approach relying on scientific research to inform guidelines for courts, including regarding use of experts and jury instructions. New Jersey courts, and all United States courts, have admissibility standards—as opposed to a system of “free proof” in which all parties can introduce any evidence they want, and potentially misleading evidence will be exposed through cross examination—because of concerns that factfinders may be unable to distinguish the superficial trappings of valid expert knowledge from truly valid expert knowledge. Thus, the Supreme Court’s 1993 ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals set out gatekeeping responsibilities for judges to assess the reliability of expert evidence. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Daubert set out a series of factors for courts to consider in evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: whether the theory or technique relied upon (1) can be (and has been) tested; (2) has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) has a known or potential rate of error; (4) includes them existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. Id. at 593–94.