Ulna
The larger of the two bones of the forearm, on the palmar 
side of the little finger.
SWGFAST, Glossary - Consolidated 09-09-03 ver. 1.0
http://www.swgfast.org/Glossary_Consolidated_ver_1.pdf

The inner and longer of the two bones of the human forearm 
on the same side as the little finger.

Ultraviolet
Wavelengths of light shorter than that of the visible spectrum, 
between 10 and 400 nm.
SWGFAST, Glossary - Consolidated 09-09-03 ver. 1.0
http://www.swgfast.org/Glossary_Consolidated_ver_1.pdf

Un-Du ®
Product used to separate adhesive tapes.
SWGFAST, Glossary - Consolidated 09-09-03 ver. 1.0
http://www.swgfast.org/Glossary_Consolidated_ver_1.pdf

Unique 
Being the only one of its kind.
The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unique 02-27-03

Having no equal; one.
Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis, David R. Ashbaugh 1999 CRC Press

Unique Characteristics
Characteristics used to individualize; specific details.
Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis, David R. Ashbaugh 1999 CRC Press

Uniqueness
Very uncommon, unusual, atypical, or remarkable; a degree of 
distinguishing distinctiveness.
Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis, David R. Ashbaugh 1999 CRC Press

United States v. Byron Mitchell (1999)
This was the first legal case where fingerprints evidence was challenged 
at a Daubert hearing.  The defense claimed that the state had failed to 
establish the scientific validity of latent prints stating, "Is there a 
scientific basis for a fingerprint examiner to make an identification, 
of absolute certainty, from a small distorted latent fingerprint fragment".   
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's decision 
was that the defense's motion to exclude fingerprint evidence was denied.

United States v. Henthorn (1991)
An extension of the Giglio decision which applies to requests for the personnel 
records of government witnesses.

See Brady and Giglio v United States.

United States v. Parks (1991) 
“The only known fingerprint case in which a federal trial court has performed 
the type of analysis that is now mandated by Daubert, the district court 
excluded the government’s fingerprint identification evidence.  United 
States v. Parks (C.D. Cal. 1991) (No. CR-91-358-JSL) (Ex. 48).  The district court 
in Parks reached its determination after hearing from three different 
fingerprint experts produced by the government in an effort to have the 
evidence admitted.  In excluding the evidence, the district court recognized, 
among other things, the lack of testing that has been done in the field, the 
failure of latent fingerprint examiners to employ uniform objective standards, 
and the minimal training that latent fingerprint examiners typically receive.”
http://www.goextranet.com/Seminars/Federal/FingerprintReply.htm 08-12-2004

The judge decided not to admit the evidence in this case because he had several 
concerns.  The initial examiner, Diana Castro, testified to a point standard (8 points) 
but couldn’t state why that standard was used.  The judge concluded there were 
no written documents or studies to support this standard and therefore the 
conclusion wasn’t scientific.  The supervisor, Darnell Carter, testified that the 
office standard was 10 points but could be reduced with a supervisor’s approval.  
The supervisor could offer no literature to support this policy.  The 3rd expert 
was an IAI Certified Examiner that worked for the United States Postal Inspection 
Service, Steven Kasarsky.  He testified that no studies on errors had been done 
but he knew of cases where 10 points of agree were found in different prints.  
He stated that practitioners all have independent standards and that practitioners 
don’t know if a dissimilarity exists in an area that wasn’t left, they must guess.

United States v. Plaza (2002)
Plaza was one of four people being charged as being a hit man.  There were latent 
prints in the case and the defense decided to challenge the fingerprint evidence.  
A Daubert hearing was held.  Federal Judge Louis Pollak ruled that fingerprint 
experts could not tell juries that two fingerprints matched.  It was noted that 
fingerprints were unique and permanent but the science didn't meet the Daubert test.  
Judge Pollak reversed his decision two months later.  

University of Applied Science
See Institute of Applied Science.

Urea
One of the organic elements in eccrine sweat.