I have a death penalty case this Summer where I have the Def's DNA from the sexual assault kit and his latent print inside the victim's apartment. The defense has filed a motion to have a Daubert hearing concerning the admissibility of the latent print, which of course, matches the Def. I was sort of expecting this after Judge Pollak's original opinion dated January 7, 2002 from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (There were several news articles after the wire service pick up his original opinion barring the prosecution witnesses from tell the jury that a "match" occurred.) Fortunately, on a motion to reconsider, Judge Pollak changed his mind and said the prosecution witnesses could tell the jury that the latent print matched one of the Defs in the case. (His second opinion was on March 13, 2002.)
We have never had a Daubert-type hearing on latent fingerprint matches in Tarrant County. Is there anyone out there that has had a Daubert hearing on latent print matches? I'm certainly open to any suggestions.
If your county has not seen this motion, I suspect it will only be a matter of time before you do.
I would think that you could introduce any number of case cites into evidence in support of the argument that the use of a fingerprint expert, at least as to the reliability of the field, has been approved and accepted as a matter of law. That would leave you to prove that your witness is, in fact, a fingerprint expert and properly applied the science to the facts of your case.
For additional suggestions and case law, see the 4th Edition of Predicate Questions Manual, published by your friendly TDCAA and available on this web site.
[This message was edited by John Bradley on 05-21-02 at .]
As the boss informed on me, I'll readily confess to doing such a hearing as to prints in a death penalty case in January 2002. We also had the same kind of attack on our ballistics expert and had to have a hearing as to him on the same theory the same day. Call me if you want to kick it around and I'll share with you my approach in as much or as little detail as you wish. Our death penalty case is now in the appeals process but they have their point preserved if anyone wants to look at it. Give my best to Charlie Brandenberg and Richard Alpert.
