Latent Fingerprint Decision Not Probative?

[josher89]

I looked in my records but I couldn't find a court case where the judge ruled that an inconclusive decision or an exclusion decision wasn't admissible because it wasn't probative in nature. I thought this may have come from Arizona or New Mexico but I'm not sure.

Does anyone know if this actually happened and have a copy of the decision or did I just make this up? There is an adult beverage riding on the line here for an answer...

[ER]

I remember it too. Glenn and I talked about it in Episode 3 of the podcast and the case gets mentioned in this article.

http://ucconsortiumssl.files.wordpress. ... -1-j40.pdf

It was the McCluskey case, where a few guys escaped prison in Arizona and murdered a couple in NM. I just can't seem to find any specific reference online. Maybe contact one of the certified people in NM.

[josher89]

Eric,

Thank you sir for directing me to the case. I do have a record of it and I will upload it here (for those that are interested). The quote I was looking for is:

Finally, the Court agrees with McCluskey that Knoll may not testify as to inconclusive
results, such as statements in her report that a particular latent print could be not be identified to a
particular individual. To be admissible as relevant evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
evidence (expert or otherwise) must make a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. R. 401. Because
such inconclusive findings do no make a fact more or less probable than it would be without them,
they are not relevant may not be admitted into evidence.

Now, about that beer...next time I see you, I'm paying it forward!