Interesting article. It seems to confirm the reliability of fingerprints themselves, but points out two problems. First is the problem of partial prints, which may be ambiguous. But that problem can be dealt with by using more expert review and by presenting the facts honestly to the court. Second is the problem of human error, corruption, and stubbornness. That can be dealt with, too, but it's a much more difficult problem. It's similar to what went on in the FBI crime lab a few years ago, when sloppy and dishonest procedures were rampant and many suspects were deliberately framed. Quis custodiat ipsos custodios?
You need honest judges and honest leadership of the FBI and police departments, and it seems as if honesty and political neutrality are hard to come by, these days. After an amazing series of public failures during the clinton years, and even earlier, the FBI simply cannot be trusted until there is a full-scale housecleaning, which is not yet in the cards.
I didn't really think this was a move to get rid of fingerprint evidence in the courts, but just to point out that due to the very things Cicero discusses, they are not infallible. I have seen other articles discussing the same topic--just do a search on "fingerprints" and several will come up. I think the science is pretty good, but the human factor could use some improvement. We had a police chemist in OKC who most suspect was helping the DA get re-elected numerous times--she testified in court to things that later were proven to be utterly impossible. Either she was completely incompetent, or as lots of us suspect, fudgiing the evidence to get a high conviction rate for the DA's office.