United States v. Bonds
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2017 WL 4511061 (2017)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Myshawn Bonds (defendant) was charged by the government (plaintiff) with two counts of bank robbery arising from a pair of robberies in 2015 in Illinois. The government disclosed that it would call Federal Bureau of Investigation forensic examiner Kira Glass to testify regarding latent fingerprint analysis. The government used analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification (ACE-V) fingerprint identification, in which the latent print is analyzed, compared to known prints to determine common details, evaluated for sufficient similarity for identification or difference for exclusion, and verified by a second examiner, albeit with the second examiner possibly knowing of the first examiner’s conclusion. Latent prints from the demand notes would be used to link Bonds to the robberies. The only known studies regarding error rates for ACE-V testing showed either a 1 in 18 or a 1 in 306 error rate, and the subjective process was concerning to Bonds, who attempted to exclude the evidence. Bonds wanted to exclude the evidence as failing to meet the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. Bonds also argued that the government had failed to meet additional indicia of reliability listed in a report on ACE-V testing by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Finally, Bonds alleged that if Glass was allowed to testify, Glass should not be allowed to testify to a match between the prints in this case or should have to advise that the level of certainty was limited by the most conservative error rate known—1 in 18.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ellis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.