Commonwealth v. Gambora

933 N.E.2d 50 (Mass. 2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Rodeway Inn was robbed by two armed men. They spoke English with Spanish accents. External surveillance videotape obtained from a neighboring business showed a car with front quarter panels that differed in color from the rest of the automobile pull into the Rodeway Inn parking lot at 10:14 P.M. and leave at 10:18 P.M. Police transported a victim to Baystate Medical Center where she was pronounced dead from the gunshot wounds. Each of the remaining victims was missing specific personal items. Police also found a footprint in the dirt outside. Police noticed a 'herringbone pattern seen on the bottom of a shoe' on the front desk, which they were unable to photograph or preserve. They 'lifted' twenty-nine fingerprints from the interior of the Rodeway Inn, as well as prints from the door, pull leading into the office. When showed a photographic array that included a photograph of D; neither victim made a positive identification. One of them did identify D's photograph as having 'similar eyes' to the gunman. Each of the remaining victims was missing specific personal items. Police also found a footprint in the dirt outside. Two days later, Police stopped a car fitting the description and arrested D. They found specific and unique items taken in the robbery. The victims identified their property. A search of D’s residence turned up sneakers that fit the print found outside the Inn. D claimed a SODDIT defense (Some other Dudes Did It) while he was passed out in the car. D was tried for murder. P wanted to introduce the fingerprint evidence from the scene of the crime. They had two experts who would testify that they found D’s prints. D motioned in limine to exclude the testimony under Daubert. D claims that while fingerprints are unique, they are so close in some aspects that it is a subjective determination that such a print could be individualized to a particular person. The judge characterized the motion as a general challenge to the reliability of a fingerprint individualization method known as ACE-V, an acronym that stands for the four steps in the method's process: analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification. The court held that ACE-V methodology was 'generally accepted within the fingerprint-examiner community,' and the underlying theory and process of latent fingerprint identification, and the ACE-V methodology, in particular, were sufficiently reliable. The witnesses testified. D renewed his objection, and it was denied. D subjected them to cross-examination. D was convicted and appealed.