Newest from Mass SJC

[L.J.Steele]

Com v. Gambora, came out 9/2/10

Majority opinion discusses NAS report on problems with fingerprint comparisons, and concludes that testimony is admissible.

"We recognize, however, that the issues highlighted in the NAS report are important, and deserve consideration. Nevertheless, we do not undertake such consideration in this case. The NAS Report accepts as "plausible" the proposition that "a careful comparison of two impressions can accurately discern whether or not they had a common source." NAS Report at 142. * * * This is a case, in sum, where the evidence linking the defendant to the crime was very strong, and one where we can say that any error in the admission of the fingerprint evidence "did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect.“

Two justices concur in the result, but note that:
"No discipline, much less fingerprint analysis, has ever been shown to produce results that achieve absolute certainty. * * * While we normally leave the humbling of inflated opinions to cross-examination, there is a danger that the mystique of fingerprint identification, which has had a captivating hold on the criminal justice system and society at large for more than one hundred years, is such that cross-examination may not be enough to rectify the effect of a fingerprint expert's use of such terms as "individualized," "absolute," and "match" when testifying, as opposed to presenting the testimony as his or her "opinion" that the latent fingerprints are the defendant's. * * * While the "science" of fingerprint analysis may be valid, claims by its practitioners that the process can establish identity with absolute certainty are not. Each stage of the ACE-V analysis depends on the judgment of a human being to make "somewhat objective" or subjective determinations. Claims of absolute certainty are particularly irresponsible by a science based in large part on human judgment. In the context of a criminal trial, I would hold that, in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the fact-finding process, in the interests of justice and fair play, fingerprint experts be prohibited from expressing the results of their analysis as absolutely establishing identity, or individualizing fingerprints to a particular individual to the exclusion of all others. They should be confined to an expression of personal opinion that the latent print belongs to the defendant. "

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... t=40000002

[L.J.Steele]

Also, note that the bries are in .pdf here

http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/displ ... =SJC-10472