before permitting a positive identification, fingerprint analysts are held to a consistent “points and characteristics” approach to identification. Analysts are also consistently subjected to testing and proficiency requirements. Brannan’s testimony is entirely in keeping with the conclusions of the post-Daubert courts that uniform standards have been established “through professional training, peer review, presentation of conflicting evidence and double checking.” Rogers, 2001 WL 1635494, *1; see also, e.g., Llera Plaza, 188 F.Supp.2d at 566-71 (detailing development of identification criteria and holding that “standards which control the opining of a competent fingerprint examiner are sufficiently widely agreed upon to satisfy Daubert requirements”); cf. Harvard, 260 F.3d at 599 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, in Havvard, the Seventh Circuit
recognizing the unique nature of an accuseds admissions holding that manual on uniform traffic control devices mutcd standards were admissible holding that the nature of a psychologistpatient relationship is such that the psychologist is in a unique position to influence the patients emotional wellbeing holding that while uniform standards may not exist the unique nature of fingerprints is counterintuitive to the establishment of such a standard holding that the unique nature of psychotherapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty of care to the patient