United States v. Llera Plaza
188 F. Supp. 2d 549, 2002 WL 389163, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4032 (2002)
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony on latent fingerprint identification using the ACE-V method, as performed by qualified FBI examiners, is sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert/Kumho Tire standards for the admission of expert testimony, even if the 'evaluation' stage involves subjective judgment, provided there are established qualification standards and verification procedures.
Facts:
- Defendants Carlos Ivan Llera Plaza, Wilfredo Martinez Acosta, and Victor Rodriguez were facing drug and murder charges.
- The government intended to present testimony from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fingerprint examiners and a specialist.
- Fingerprint identification involves comparing 'latent' prints (impressed on surfaces by unknown persons) with 'rolled' prints (known exemplar fingerprints) to determine if they match.
- The ACE-V process for fingerprint examination consists of four steps: analysis of the latent print, comparison with a rolled print, evaluation to determine a match, and verification by a second examiner.
- Historically, jurisdictions around the world, including the United States, applied varying or no minimum numbers of 'Galton points' (distinctive ridge characteristics) to declare a fingerprint match.
- Allan Bayle, a London-based fingerprint consultant, criticized the FBI's internal proficiency tests for using latent prints that were generally clearer and less representative of crime scene conditions than those typically encountered by examiners.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants Carlos Ivan Llera Plaza, Wilfredo Martinez Acosta, and Victor Rodriguez were charged with drug and murder offenses in a federal district court.
- The defendants filed a motion to preclude the United States from introducing latent fingerprint identification evidence.
- The government responded with a combined motion in limine to admit latent print evidence and a response to the defendants' motion to preclude.
- On January 7, 2002, the district court issued an opinion and order that partially granted the defendants' motion, allowing only descriptive fingerprint testimony but precluding opinion testimony as to a match.
- The government moved for reconsideration of the January 7, 2002 ruling, seeking to present additional evidence regarding FBI proficiency tests and arguing the prior analysis was flawed.
- The district court agreed to reconsider its prior ruling and held a three-day evidentiary hearing where both government and defense witnesses testified.
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 the ACE-V (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, Verification) method of latent fingerprint identification, as practiced by certified FBI fingerprint examiners, meet the reliability standards for expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as explicated by Daubert and Kumho Tire, such that opinion testimony regarding a match is admissible in federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollak, District Judge
Yes, the ACE-V method of latent fingerprint identification, as practiced by certified FBI fingerprint examiners, meets the reliability standards for expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert/Kumho Tire, making opinion testimony regarding a match admissible. Judge Pollak, upon reconsideration and review of an expanded record, reversed his prior ruling. He clarified that while fingerprint identification is a 'technical' rather than 'scientific' discipline, Kumho Tire mandates a flexible Daubert analysis applicable to both, requiring the 'same level of intellectual rigor' as in the expert's field. The court found that the 'peer review' and 'general acceptance' factors were satisfied within the relevant technical community. Regarding the 'testing' factor, while scientific testing in the strict Daubert sense was still lacking, the court noted high FBI proficiency test scores and concluded, based on the expanded record, that there was 'no evidence that the error rate of certified FBI fingerprint examiners is unacceptably high,' nor any erroneous identifications attributable to FBI examiners. The court specifically addressed concerns about 'standards controlling the technique’s operation' by finding that certified FBI fingerprint examiners have rigorous qualification standards. Furthermore, the prior concern about varying 'Galton point' minimums was mooted by new evidence showing that the United Kingdom, after extensive study, had abandoned numerical standards in favor of a non-numerical system that closely aligns with the FBI's ACE-V procedures. Finally, while the 'evaluation' stage is acknowledged to be subjective, the court determined that the expert's ultimate opinion is grounded in objective criteria (compatible feature types, relative positions, sequence, sufficient quantitative/qualitative detail, and absence of discrepancies) and is subject to independent verification by two other experts, thereby meeting the 'intellectual rigor' standard. The court concluded that a system deemed sufficiently reliable for English courts, which now parallels the FBI's approach, should also be reliable in U.S. federal courts.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the admissibility of fingerprint identification evidence in federal courts under the Daubert standard, particularly for established forensic disciplines. It demonstrates the flexibility of the Daubert framework, as articulated in Kumho Tire, allowing courts to adapt reliability factors to technical rather than purely scientific expertise. The court's willingness to reconsider its initial, more restrictive ruling highlights the dynamic nature of Daubert hearings and the importance of a comprehensive evidentiary record. The decision suggests that rigorous institutional training, internal quality controls, and harmonization with international standards can bolster the perceived reliability of expert testimony, even when traditional 'scientific testing' is still developing.
