Fingerprints/Body Fluids/Breath/Voice
Category > Fingerprints/Body Fluids/Breath/Voice
Murder conviction was reversed based on new evidence challenging the opinion of the state’s bite mark expert, that was introduced under the amended version of section 1473. The 2014 amendment to Penal Code section 1473 makes clear that an expert opinion at trial can later be deemed “false evidence” if the expert repudiates his or her own opinion or if the opinion is later undermined by subsequent scientific research or technological advances. Both prongs were met here where the prosecution’s dental expert recanted his opinion regarding a bite mark match, and scientific research has undermined bite mark evidence in general. Defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted. id: 24716
The trial court did not err by failing to conduct a Kelly hearing on the reliability of fingerprint evidence.Defendant argued the trial court erred when it admitted fingerprint evidence connecting him to the crimes because the scientific community has rejected the reliability of fingerprint evidence. However, fingerprint evidence is not subject to a Kelly type foundational hearing because it’s not a novel scientific technique and does not have a misleading aura of certainty. And fingerprint evidence, in general is not so unreliable that it should be excluded.id: 24198
The trial court did not err by allowing an expert in fingerprint identification to testify as an expert on the durability of fingerprints.Defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a forensic identification deputy to testify about the durability of fingerprints. However, the witness was trained in fingerprint evidence including the circumstances under which they may be lifted and the ways they may become contaminated and unusable. The court did nto err in allowing the expert to testify about the durability of fingerprints. id: 22617
Hair comparison analysis to include defendant in a class of possible donors is not a new scientific technique for Kelly-Frye purposes.Defendant argued that use of hair comparison analysis to include a defendant in the class of possible donors was a new scientific technique, and that the People's criminalist was not qualified to testify on whether it had been generally accepted for this purpose. However, hair comparison evidence that identifies a suspect or victim as a possible donor has been routinely admitted in California for many years without any suggestion that it is unreliable under Kelly-Frye.id: 12985
Shoe print comparison was not subject to Kelly requirements.Defendant argued the shoe print evidence, offered through the police criminalist was inadmissible under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24. However, jurors could judge for themselves whether the sole patterns looked the same. Since the evidence was obvious to a lay person, it did not implicate the concerns regarding the reliability of scientific procedures.id: 19789
The trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to introduce hair comparison evidence.Defendant argued the trial court erred by permitting hair
comparison evidence. However, despite recent criticism of the reliability of such evidence, California courts have long agreed it is admissible, and the criminalist acknowledged it was of
little significance.id: 19013
The magistrate was not required to make a probable cause finding before ordering a lawfully arrested defendant to provide a fingerprint exemplar.A defendant who is detained pursuant to a lawful arrest may be ordered to provide a fingerprint exemplar. There is no requirement for a separate probable cause determination before such an order may be made.id: 16932
Court did not err in allowing evidence of the computerized fingerprint matching program.After an Evidence Code section 402 hearing the trial court allowed the prosecutor to present testimony from an officer regarding the LA Police Department's use of a computerized database for fingerprint matching (the CAL-ID system), that produced a list of candidates, which included defendant, whose fingerprints were similar to those found at the crime scene. Contrary to defendant's claim, this was not the type of evidence that might evoke prejudice by making it appear as though defendant was the subject of an "unimpeachable" computerized decision. Moreover, the CAL-ID system was not subject to the Kelly analysis requiring a showing of acceptance within the scientific community.id: 16847
Fingerprint evidence was not inadmissible where there was a discrepancy as to the room in which the evidence was found.Defendant argued that fingerprint evidence of a business card was improperly admitted at trial because it did not meet the chain of custody requirements. The fact that a photograph placed the card in the bedroom, yet the evidence bag in which it was contained came from the kitchen was not fatal to its admissibility. The significance of the evidence was that it came from the house, rather than a particular room.id: 12984
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting population frequency statistics to compliment the bloodstain analyses.Defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion in admitting population frequency statistics to complement the bloodstain analyses. He argued the numbers were irrelevant because they cannot definitively identify a specific person as the source of a particular blood sample. However, defendant's argument goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence.id: 12986
The trial court properly found the agglutination inhibition test and PCR analysis of the DQ alpha gene are accepted as reliable techniques in the scientific community.The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of two types of tests performed to identify the sources of blood samples: 1) a gamma marker (GM) blood analysis performed pursuant to the agglutination inhibition method, and 2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) DNA analysis. The court properly found that both agglutination inhibition and PCR analysis of the DQ alpha gene are accepted as reliable techniques by the relevant scientific community.id: 12987
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245