The Ear That Convicted a Man in Washington
In 1999, David Wayne Kunze was charged partly on the theory that an ear print left on a door uniquely identified him, treated by prosecutors like a fingerprint. The story follows how a single unusual piece of evidence made its way into court, and how the case forced judges to ask what science actually was.
Listen in the Fylom app.
The prosecution in the David Wayne Kunze trial claimed ear prints are unique biological signatures.
Judge Robert Harris allowed ear print evidence based on expert experience rather than scientific consensus.
The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the conviction because ear printing failed the Frye standard.
Ear print identification lacks empirical validation and standardized error rates required for modern courtrooms.
The legal system shifted from relying on expert consensus to requiring hard data and peer review.
Charges against Kunze were dismissed after a second trial resulted in a mistrial.
- 01Intro1 min
- 02The Impression on the Door2 min
- 03The Appellate Rejection3 min
- 04Defining Science in the Courtroom3 min
- 05Outro1 min
- STATE v. KUNZE (1999) - FindLaw Caselaw
- Earmark Identification in the David Wayne Kunze Case
- State v. Kunze - vLex Case Law
- Dutch Crime Expert At Murder Trial Has Forensics Community's ...
- STATE v
- David Wayne Kunze
- CASES / VONNISSE
- Ear prints in crime scene investigations | Science
- Daubert vs. Frye: Standards of Admissibility for Expert Testimony
- Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert | Daubert and Kumho Decisions
- THE FINGERPRINT SOURCEBOOK - Office of Justice Programs
- Frye Standard | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
- Federal Rule of Evidence 702
Fylom generates episodes like this on any topic you're curious about.
Fylom episodes are researched, written, and voiced by AI. Automated checks help catch inaccuracies, but episodes aren't reviewed by a human and AI can still get things wrong. Treat them as a starting point, not a source of record — more in our accuracy disclaimer.