People v. Mariano

Opinion

2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM!-=='·' '"-JL"~i

PEOPLE OF GUAlVI, ) 4 ) CASE NO. CF0630-09 5 ) v. ) 6 DECISION AND ORDER ) ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE 7 ) FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE ERWIN SCOTT lVIARIANO, ) 8 ) 9 Defendant. )

10 INTRODUCTION II This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on 12 September 17, 2013 on Defendant's Motion to exclude fingerprint evidence. l3 Assistant Attorney General Gabrielle Rossi represented the People of Guam. 14 Defendant Erwin Scott Mariano was represented by Attorney Richard Dirkx. 15 Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, this Court now issues its 16 Decision and Order. 17 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18 On July 25, 2013, Defendant Mariano filed his motion to exclude fingerprint 19 evidence. In the motion, Defendant argues that fingerprint evidence lacks the 20

21 579 (1993). He bases his argument on a report issued by the National Academy of 22 Sciences in 2009.1 23 On August 27, 2013, the People filed their Opposition to the motion. They 24 contend the NAS Report is not an invalidation of fingerprinting as a science and 25 that this issue has been already addressed by the Circuit Courts. 26

28 INat'l Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009). Decision and Order Case No. CF0630-09

On September 12, 2013, Defendant filed his Reply. In it, he now 2 as one of mandatory disclosure with a ~~~ Hearing 3 sought in the Defendant has nothing in the way of 4 fingerprint to analyze. This stance was reiterated 5 during the motion hearing on September 2013. For the reasons forth below,

6 this Court shall deny the motion.

7 DISCUSSION

8 As the People correctly summarized at the motion hearing, the Defendant

9 really raises two issues before this Court. In his motion, Defendant challenges the very reliability of the fingerprinting techniques purportedly utilized by the crime 10 lab technicians in this case. In his reply, Defendant raises the issue of a lack of II disclosed fingerprint evidence. 12 I. Admissibility of Fingerprint Evidence. 13 The trial judge must determine at the outset whether an expert is proposing 14 to testifY to 1) scientific knowledge that 2) will assist the trier of fact to understand 15 or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the 16 reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of 17 whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. 18 Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, 592-593. 19 In Daubert, the Supreme Court of the United States issued four factors which 20 touch on the reliability, and thus admissibility, of scientific evidence: 1) whether the 21 theory or technique can be and has been tested; 2) whether the technique has been 22 subject to peer review and publication; 3) the technique's known or potential rate of 23 error and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and 24 4) the level of the theory or technique's acceptance within the relevant discipline.

25 ~~~' 509 U.S. 579, 593-594.

26 Defendant's motion launches an all-out attack on the reliability of the

27 fingerprint techniques used in this case as well as fingerprinting in generaL He

28 asks this Court for a full hearing on the scientific merit behind

-2- Decision and Order Case No. CF0630-09

fingerprinting to ascertain whether it can be properly admitted into evidence 2 against him. 3 "Fingerprint identification has been admissible as reliable evidence in 4 criminal trials in this country at least 1911." 5 (4th Cir. 2003). In the 6 identifications admissible. ~~~~~2..!...~~~~, 299 F.3d 984 (8th Cir.

7 260 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2001); ~== =~~:...:.._.!::~~~~, 98 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. 1996). While each of the cases cited here 8 pre-date the NAS report cited by Defendant, that report has been analyzed in 9 context with the issues found here. 10 As the Supreme Court of Florida noted in Johnston v. State, 27 So.3d 11, 21 11 (Fla. 2010), the NAS committee tasked with issuing the report wrote, "The 12 committee decided early in its work that it would not be feasible to develop a 13 detailed evaluation of each discipline in terms of its scientific underpinning, level of 14 development, and ability to provide evidence to address the major types of questions 15 raised in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation." Thus, the Florida Supreme 16 Court agreed with the lower Court in concluding, "[t]he report ... is merely a new or 17 updated discussion of issues regarding developments in forensic testing." Id. 18 This Court is disinclined to take the drastic step of finding fingerprint 19 identification, a technique with such a long history of reliability in the scientific and 20 legal realms, to be inadmissible as unreliable in the wake of this call for an updated 21 discussion on forensic analysis. Furthermore, the Court concludes that in light of 22 fingerprint analysis' repeated challenges and affirmations throughout the United 23 States and its Circuit Courts, there is no need for a full Daubert hearing on the 24 lSSUe.

25 II. People's Disclosure of Fingerprint Evidence to Defendant.

26 In his Reply, Defendant points out that there has been numerous requests for

27 disclosure and subpoenas duces tecum issued in this case, which is also reflected in the Court's record. As was his contention in the Reply and at the motion hearing, 28 Defendant states he has no fingerprint evidence turned over to him and that there

-3- Decision and Order Case No. CF0630-09

5 at the 6 scene.

8 Defendant. The Assistant Attorney General assigned to this case has represented that she has already made 9 available all the evidence she has. Defendant's dissatisfaction with what has been 10 presented to him differs greatly from the rep1·esentation he makes in saying he has 11 received no evidence. Without more, there is nothing for this Court to do on the 12 matter other than to reiterate the People's duties and obligations pertaining to this 13 lSSUe. 14 CONCLUSION IS For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Exclude is hereby 16 DENIED. A Criminal Trial Setting is set for January 31, 2014 at 2:00p.m. 17

19 It is SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2013. 20 Original Signed By: 21 Hob. Alberto C. Lamorena m

22 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III 23 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 24

-4-