The reasoning sandwiched between these statements is brief:
[S]cientists and courts have regarded such evidence as reliable for upwards of a century. See United States v. Calderon-Segura, 512 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2008). When, as here, the fingerprints “were exemplars taken under controlled circumstances and were complete, not fragmented,” fingerprint evidence is in fact highly reliable. Id. at 1109. Although the fingerprint examiner in this case may have been less than cautious in her testimony, the immigration judge and the BIA did not err in relying upon it, given the examiner’s experience and the fact that another technician corroborated the findings.The examiner in the case was unclear about how complete her identification was. How can the court conclude that an examination "is in fact highly reliable" just because an examiner says that the prints match? In effect, the court applied a presumption of reliability to the testimony--or at least enough of a presumption to make a cursorily presented but unquestioned opinion "substantial."
References
- Acosta-Roque v. Holder, No. 11-70705 (Oct. 24, 2012), http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2012/10/24/11-70705.pdf
- http://for-sci-law-now.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-is-nelson-acosta-roque-part-i.html
- http://for-sci-law-now.blogspot.com/2012/06/who-is-nelson-acosta-roque-part-ii.html
- http://for-sci-law-now.blogspot.com/2012/06/who-is-nelson-acosta-roque-part-iii.html
No comments:
Post a Comment