United States v. Rose

United States District Court for the District of Maryland · 2009 · Evidence

672 F. Supp. 2d 723 (D. Md. 2009)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceExpert testimonyFingerprint identificationDaubertRule 702Fed. R. Evid. 702ACE-Vlatent fingerprints

Facts

The government sought to introduce fingerprint evidence identifying Brian Rose as the source of two latent prints recovered from the victim's Mercedes and one latent print recovered from a stolen silver Intrepid connected with the murder scene. A Maryland state court had previously excluded proposed fingerprint identification testimony as unreliable under Maryland law, after which federal charges were brought. In federal court, the defense argued that the ACE-V methodology was unreliable and requested an evidentiary hearing, but it did not separately contest the specific identifications made in this case. The record included case law, the NAS Report, the OIG Report on the Brandon Mayfield case, affidavits from defense experts Lyn and Ralph Haber, and memoranda from SWGFAST and the IAI.

Issue

Whether expert testimony identifying the defendant through latent fingerprint comparison using the ACE-V methodology is sufficiently reliable to be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and whether a separate evidentiary hearing was required before admitting that evidence.

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, fingerprint identification evidence based on the ACE-V methodology is admissible where the methodology is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, operates under professional standards, and has a very low incidence of erroneous misidentifications. Criticisms about possible examiner error ordinarily go to weight rather than admissibility and may be addressed through cross-examination, contrary evidence, and independent review.

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 kidnapping trial in Denver, the prosecution offers a latent fingerprint examiner who used the ACE-V methodology to identify a print lifted from duct tape. The defense argues that because forensic science has been criticized in several academic publications, fingerprint identification should be excluded as inherently unreliable.

How should the court most likely rule on the admissibility of the fingerprint testimony?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, fingerprint identification based on ACE-V is sufficiently reliable under Rule 702 where it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, operates under standards, and has a very low incidence of erroneous misidentifications. Broad critiques of forensic science do not by themselves require exclusion.