Commonwealth v. Gambora
2010 Mass. LEXIS 602, 933 N.E.2d 50, 457 Mass. 715 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony identifying a latent fingerprint to a specific individual is admissible, but it should be presented as an opinion rather than an infallible fact, and opinions expressing absolute certainty or individualization 'to the exclusion of all others' should be avoided.
Facts:
- On April 18, 2003, Jaya Desai and her family were in their apartment, which was connected to the Rodeway Inn they owned and operated.
- Two men, one armed with a gun, forced their way from the hotel office into the Desai family's living room, demanding money.
- Hearing the commotion, Jaya Desai came to the bottom of the stairs and screamed at the intruders to get out of the house.
- The gunman then fired two shots, one of which fatally struck Jaya Desai in the chest.
- After shooting Desai, the intruders threatened her son Sandip, telling him not to look at them or they would kill him.
- The men stole a bank bag, a surveillance unit, wallets, and a set of keys before fleeing the scene.
- Two days later, police stopped Jesus Gambora driving a car that matched the description of the one seen on surveillance footage from a neighboring business.
- A search of Gambora's car revealed keys stolen from a victim, Azam Rabbani, and a receipt that had been in the stolen bank bag.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesus Gambora was charged in a Massachusetts trial court with murder, armed robbery, and firearms offenses.
- Before trial, Gambora filed a motion in limine to exclude all fingerprint evidence on the grounds that it was not scientifically reliable.
- The trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- At trial, Gambora renewed his objection to the fingerprint expert's testimony that the prints were 'individualized' to him; the judge overruled the objection.
- A jury convicted Gambora of murder in the first degree on theories of both deliberate premeditation and felony-murder, as well as several other counts.
- Gambora appealed his convictions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does expert testimony identifying a defendant's latent fingerprint using the ACE-V methodology, including claims of 'individualization' to the exclusion of all others, meet the reliability standards for admission into evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Botsford, J.
Yes. The underlying theory and process of latent fingerprint identification, and the ACE-V methodology in particular, are sufficiently reliable to admit expert opinion testimony. The court acknowledged that a 2009 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report raised serious questions about the scientific reliability of fingerprint analysis, particularly claims of absolute certainty and 'individualization.' However, the court declined to find the testimony inadmissible on that basis here. It held that even if it was error to permit the expert to testify that he 'individualized' the prints to the defendant 'to the exclusion of all others,' the error was harmless. The error did not influence the jury because the defendant himself testified that he had touched the door pull where the prints were found, and there was substantial other evidence linking him to the crime, including the discovery of stolen items in his car and a shoe print match.
Concurring - Spina, J.
Yes. While the evidence was properly admitted in this case, fingerprint experts should be prohibited from testifying with absolute certainty or using terms like 'individualized' to the exclusion of all others. Such claims are not proper opinion testimony and mislead the jury due to the 'mystique of fingerprint identification.' The analysis process relies on human judgment and is not infallible. Therefore, experts should be confined to expressing a personal opinion that the latent print belongs to the defendant, which was not done by the primary expert here. The error was harmless only because of the defendant's own testimony and the overwhelming weight of other evidence.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant judicial acknowledgment of modern scientific criticism of fingerprint evidence, particularly as detailed in the influential 2009 NAS Report. While the court stopped short of barring such testimony, it strongly cautioned against claims of absolute certainty, signaling a shift away from the historical acceptance of fingerprint identification as an infallible science. This case sets a precedent for how fingerprint experts should frame their testimony, requiring them to present their findings as subjective opinions rather than objective facts. The ruling will likely lead to more rigorous cross-examinations and Daubert challenges regarding the foundation of fingerprint evidence in future criminal trials.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Gambora