Criminal Defense
Since 1993
Since 1993
“The One and Only”: Why a Judge Banned the Word “Match” from the Courtroom
By: John Guidry
“All knowledge degenerates into probability.” — David Hume
Okay, I’m not the biggest Hume fan, but I love that quote. After defending over 60 jury trials in Orlando, I’ve seen more than my fair share of prosecutors presenting scientific evidence as “fact,” when it is really just probability.
- The Myth: The general public assumes that when an expert says two prints “match,” they are identical in every way.
- The Reality: The expert has merely “matched” a few unique points (loops and ridges) and presumed the rest of the print matches.
The Question: Is it a fact that no two prints on Earth are alike? The Answer: We don’t actually know. No large-scale scientific study has ever been done to prove it. We just assume it’s true because it sounds good.
Did the State claim your fingerprint was found at the scene?
A “match” is an opinion, not a fact. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.
The Case: State v. Borrego (The “Science” on Trial)
The reason we are discussing fingerprints again is because of an excellent court order from Miami-Dade Judge Milton Hirsch. In State v. Borrego (Case No. F12-101, Oct. 25, 2012), the defense attorney filed a motion to stop the prosecutor’s expert from telling the jury that the defendant was “the one and only source” of the print.
The Judge’s Reasoning: Judge Hirsch agreed with the defense, digging deep into the history of this so-called science:
- The “16-Point” Standard: As early as 1920, Scotland Yard required 16 points of identity to declare a match.
- The “8-Point” Standard: American examiners lowered this to 8 or 12 points.
- The Problem: There is no scientific basis for these numbers. If a fingerprint has 175 characteristics, and you only match 8 of them, can you really ignore the other 167?
Judge Hirsch wrote:
“The proposition that no two persons can have the same fingerprint is one for which there exists much empirical, but no theoretical, support.”
The Ruling: You Can Point, But You Can’t Conclude
The Judge recognized a dangerous bias: Fingerprint identification is practiced almost exclusively by law enforcement. It isn’t an independent science like chemistry; it is a tool of the prosecution. To protect the jury from being misled by a “Police Expert,” Judge Hirsch issued strict rules for his courtroom.
What is Admissible: The expert can show the jury the two prints and say:
“I direct the jury’s attention to the arch appearing here, and the loop appearing here.”
What is BANNED: The expert CANNOT say:
“I have concluded that this fingerprint matches that of the defendant to the exclusion of all other fingerprints in the history of the world.”
The jury must decide if they match. The expert is just a tour guide.
John’s 2026 Update: The DOJ Bans “100% Certainty”
Note: In 2012, Judge Hirsch was an outlier. In 2026, he has been vindicated by the Federal Government.
1. The PCAST Report Vindication In 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a bombshell report confirming exactly what Judge Hirsch said: Latent fingerprint analysis is subjective and lacks “foundational validity” for absolute identification.
- The Result: This report forces judges to admit that error rates exist, destroying the old myth of “infallibility.”
2. The DOJ “Uniform Language” (ULTR) In 2026, the Department of Justice enforces strict guidelines (ULTR) for federal examiners.
- Banned Phrases: Federal experts are now prohibited from saying “Zero Error Rate,” “100% Certainty,” or “To the exclusion of all others.”
- The Defense: If a local Florida expert gets on the stand and uses these banned absolute terms, we cross-examine them using the DOJ’s own rules to show they are exaggerating the science.
3. The AI “Black Box” Problem Today, humans rarely do the initial search. Algorithms (ABIS) scan millions of prints and suggest a “candidate.”
- The Risk: AI often finds “Close Non-Matches”—prints from two different people that look identical to the naked eye.
- The Strategy: We demand to know if the “match” was suggested by an AI. If so, we argue that the human examiner was biased by the computer’s suggestion and likely ignored subtle differences that prove innocence.
Don’t Let Them Call an Opinion a Fact
If the only evidence against you is a smudge on a window, don’t let them tell the jury it’s a “perfect match.” Science is about probability, and we know how to use that doubt to your advantage.
Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s inspect the prints.
About John Guidry II
John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.
Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.
Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.
When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.