United States v. Llera Plaza II

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2002 · Evidence

EvidenceExpert testimonyFingerprint identificationRule 702DaubertKumho TireJudicial noticelatent fingerprints

Facts

In the upcoming criminal trial, the government expected to call several FBI fingerprint examiners and a fingerprint specialist to offer latent print identification evidence. The court's original ruling took judicial notice of fingerprint uniqueness and permanence but concluded that the FBI's ACE-V method did not sufficiently satisfy Daubert to permit evaluative opinion testimony that a latent print matched a particular person. On reconsideration, the government presented live testimony from FBI official Stephen Meagher and Postal Inspection Service analyst Kenneth Smith about ACE-V and FBI proficiency testing, while defendants presented Allan Bayle, Janine Arvizu, and Ralph Norman Haber to criticize the adequacy of those tests. The expanded record also clarified FBI examiner qualifications, proficiency testing results, and the current English approach to fingerprint identification evidence.

Issue

Whether expert testimony by certified FBI fingerprint examiners identifying a latent print as the print of a particular person is sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as interpreted by Daubert and Kumho Tire, to be admitted at trial. Relatedly, whether the court should continue its earlier restriction limiting fingerprint experts to descriptive comparison testimony only.

Rule

Under Rule 702 as construed by Daubert and Kumho Tire, technical expert testimony is admissible when it is sufficiently reliable and relevant, and the trial court has broad latitude to determine reliability using the Daubert factors only insofar as they are reasonable measures of reliability in the particular technical field. For fingerprint identification, a court may take judicial notice that fingerprints are unique and permanent, and may admit ACE-V identification testimony by certified FBI fingerprint examiners, subject to trial-court oversight ensuring that the expert is properly qualified and that the prints are of a quality arguably susceptible to responsible analysis, comparison, and evaluation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal robbery trial in Chicago, prosecutors offer Dana Mercer, a certified FBI fingerprint examiner, to testify that a latent print lifted from a glass door matches the defendant's rolled print. The defense moves to exclude the testimony solely because ACE-V has not been validated through Daubert-style scientific testing.

How should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority treated fingerprint identification through ACE-V as technical rather than scientific expertise. Under Kumho Tire, the court has broad latitude to use Daubert factors only insofar as they reasonably measure reliability in the field. The opinion held that the lack of Daubert-style scientific testing did not by itself require exclusion of match opinions by certified FBI examiners, so long as the examiner is properly qualified and the prints are of a quality arguably susceptible to responsible analysis, comparison, and evaluation. (Derived from United States v. Llera Plaza II (n.d.).)