CLPEX Chat Board

I've worked in jurisdictions where prosecutors won't go after a car thief or burglar because their prints were found on the exterior of the car. It's sad that some view it as a blanket policy. It would be nice if some judges exercised a little common sense...... it's called "reasonable" doubt.

When you read the opinion, you find that it is exactly a ruling that a fingerprint on the outside passenger door handle ALONE is not sufficient.

Essentially, the justices were asked to consider the evidence, really the combination of evidence.

Defendant's fingerprint found on an exterior passenger door handle.
Circumstances that show the print was contemporaneous with the robbery or movement of the truck afterward. (Detailed immediately before the incident.)
Defendant's residence of record isn't near where the truck was found or the scene. (Meaningless)
The victims saw no one get in the passenger side. (Doesn't show no one did. They weren't in a position to see.)
The victims cannot describe clothing of anyone but a co-defendant. (They did adequately describe that of a co-actor. Masks were worn.)

The defendant was charged with the actual robbery, not involvement with the truck or the other actors after the fact. I don't see this being in any way different from many cases in which proof is not there. A person may be found with identifiable property taken in a burglary earlier that day hidden in his home. He's connected to the property by possession, and it is close in time to the crime. But I would not expect to have an acceptable case with that alone. It's not hard at all to imagine various scenarios that would produce similar observations without there having been any knowing criminal act.

Reasonable doubt does not mean the defendant has to propose a specific alternative theory. It means the State has to eliminate any reasonable alternative. It's fundamental that one does not have to prove one's innocence by producing evidence of innocence. At any stage in the incident, any number of things could have developed to eliminate any reasonable innocent alternative. The pursuing officers might have seen Turner run from the truck, or even someone besides Dorn run. (They did see co-defendant Dorn jump out and saw that there was no one else in the truck, and they found Dorn hiding nearby with the weapon, found his prints on the driver side handle, and matched his clothing to the victims' descriptions.) The victims might have been able to identify Turner or even his clothing. He might have given a nonsensical statement to officers. They might have found him with a mask. He might have been seen with Dorn that morning.

The justices made exactly the right call, consistent with their prior rulings about interior fingerprints being alone sufficient but exterior prints alone being not.

Would you strongly suspect Turner was one of the robbers? Sure. Should he be convicted on that evidence? No. The full opinion is on-line at:
http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinio ... 08-256.pdf

Many years ago I was testifying on a burglary from vehicle case, regarding the identification of a print from the driver's door vent window (POE). During cross-exam, the defense attorney made a point about the print being on the outside of the window, where the vehicle was parked, and suggesting the prints could have been left inadvertently while walking past the vehicle. Before I could respond, the judge (of many years & well respected) interjected with something to the effect of he didn't care if the vehicle was parked on the moon, the defendant's fingerprints had no business being on that particular vehicle. He then suggested that the defense attorney abandon that line of questioning and conclude his case. The defendant was found guilty in short order. As far as I know, that case never was appealed.
Regards, RLT

Well, the smaller the case, the less likely an appeal. And a local attorney may be reluctant to frame an appeal partly on the grounds that the judge he will have to face for years to come committed a gross violation of his judicial role. That was tantamount to telling the jury that the only contact with the car would have to be done in the course of a crime.