Fingerprint Fables: When “Experts” Claim a Match in Orlando

By: John Guidry

Any time several folks get together to form a group, there’s always a risk bad things will happen. One of the minor annoyances of people “organizing” is that they’ll end up developing their own corny lingo. I’m not a fan of this, even though I’m more guilty of it than most. I belong to a church that is guilty of “Christian speak,” which is often just virtue signaling—referring to ourselves as “disciples” and our work as “ministry.” Even Jesus was more straightforward, promising a thief paradise without requiring a special membership or a mission trip.

Anyway, science has its own battles with language and the truth. This plays out frequently in Orlando’s criminal courts, where the “typical script” for a fingerprint expert often ignores the actual math behind the science.

The battleground is simple: Can an “expert” look a jury in the eye and say one fingerprint “matches” another? In 2025, the answer is increasingly: Not so fast.

Convicted based solely on a fingerprint found at a crime scene? In 2025, a “match” isn’t a fact—it’s an opinion. Call John Guidry today at (407) 423-1117 to challenge the “junk science” in your case.

The Reality of Fingerprint Math

Our fingers have between 75 and 175 unique loops and ridges. When a police expert claims a “match,” they are usually only looking at 12 unique identifiers. They take 12 points out of a potential 175 and declare an identical match.

But what about the other 163 points? If 12 match but 3 don’t, it isn’t the same person, is it? Historically, experts blabbed to the jury that the print on the gun is the defendant’s print. But scientifically, they can’t prove that. They are making a statistical claim without a large-scale scientific study to back it up.

Dade County Judge Milton Hirsch exposed these probability issues years ago in State v. Borrego (Case No. F12-101). He began a trend of prohibiting the State from using the word “match.” As Judge Hirsch noted, no two prints may be the same, but no one has actually proven that.

Case Study: T.T.S. v. State (The Neighborhood Helper Trap)

In T.T.S. v. State, 249 So. 3d 1303 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a woman came home to find her bedroom ransacked and her late husband’s wedding ring, a loaded handgun, and her rosary missing. The police found three fingerprints—two on a bedroom window and one in the son’s bedroom.

• The Suspect: A neighborhood kid who had helped her put up a Christmas tree.
• The “Evidence”: The prints were allegedly his. Even though he was never found with the jewelry or the gun, and no one saw him near the house, he was convicted of burglary and grand theft of a firearm.
• The Failure of Proof: Because the kid had told police he had “never been in the back bedrooms,” the court used the prints as a “gotcha” to convict him.

The appellate court unfortunately upheld the conviction, but they got it wrong. In 2025, we know that “junk science” shouldn’t be the sole reason a kid goes to jail.

John’s Takeaways for 2025

• The 12-Point Rule: Florida law typically requires 12 points of comparison. In 2025, we argue that 12 points out of 175 is a failure of proof for a “scientific match.”
• Motion in Limine: We file motions to stop the expert from using the word “match” or claiming the defendant is the “only possible source.” They shouldn’t be allowed to tell the jury they are “100% positive.”
• The “Christmas Tree” Defense: If you had a legal reason to be in a home previously, the mere presence of your fingerprints doesn’t prove you committed a burglary later. Proximity is not possession.
• 2025 Digital Prints: Under F.S. § 921.241, digital fingerprint records are now prima facie evidence of identity for past convictions, but latent prints from a crime scene are still subjective and prone to human error.
• The “Boring” Truth: Real science is about probabilities, not certainties. If an expert sounds like they’re in a movie, they’re probably overreaching.

The justice system is harsh, and it’s “insane” how a few smudges on a window can ruin a life. I’ve been defending Central Florida citizens against overconfident experts since 1993. Whether you’re in Orange, Seminole, or Osceola County, I know how to cross-examine a fingerprint examiner until their “match” looks more like a “maybe.”

Convicted by a fingerprint? Call John at (407) 423-1117.

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.