I made you a comparison:

Apple is using fingerprint evidence to allow or deny access to a phone.

Judiciary around the world is using fingerprint evidence to lock people up, deny them basic rights, and sometimes to kill them.

I think his point is that you could frame someone using this method. Juries tend to give lots of weight to forensic evidence, often more than is scientifically justified. If you hear 'his fingerprints were found on the murder weapon' then for most people that is more than enough.