The defendant was convicted largely from the analysis of a fingerprint on an envelope. However, in the appeal, three fingerprint experts contradicted the opinion of the expert who made the initial identification. The Minnesota Supreme Court called for a new trial. To avoid such mistakes in future cases, greater quality control through the use of second opinions is needed. A minimum number of points of similarity of fingerprints should not be required. Similarly, no interminable series of reviews is necessary. However, someone in a supervisory capacity in the chain of crime laboratory command should review and reevaluate the basis for the expert's opinion, whether for a fingerprint expert or another type of expert. Figures and a list of nine references are supplied.