Commonwealth v. Gambora
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
933 N.E.2d 50 (2010)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Jesus Gambora (defendant) was charged with murder. Investigators pulled two latent fingerprints from the scene of the crime. The prosecution sought to introduce testimony of two expert witnesses who would testify that the prints pulled from the scene match Gambora’s fingerprints. Gambora filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony, arguing based on a report that fingerprint analysis is not scientifically reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Specifically, the report stated that while fingerprints are unique to each person, fingerprints are similar enough that it may be difficult to know with complete certainty that a particular print belongs to a particular person. In addition the report stated that each step of the fingerprint match methodology is somewhat subjective and subject to bias. The trial court denied Gambora’s motion. The prosecution’s experts testified at trial that they had individualized the prints found at the scene of the crime to Gambora. The defense spent considerable time cross-examining the witnesses on the fact that they could not say with absolute certainty that the prints were Gambora’s. Gambora was convicted, and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Botsford, J.)
Concurrence (Spina, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.