good morning your honour's may it please the court my name is molly armor and we are here regarding the trial of my sean bonds on two counts of bank robbery there were two different robberies that occurred in this case one was the august twenty fifth robbery of a p m o pair of spanking carpenter's bell and one of the september eleventh two thousand and fifteen robbery of a chase bank in joliet the lone issue that we have  raised on appeal is whether the district court violent it mr bond's sixth amendment rights to confrontation where the court barred any cross examination regarding the mayfield matter where there were applied in mayfield that failed to account for what transpired in this case you know in years earlier ten years earlier but as we know from the recent p cast report mayfield remains significant touchstone in the field of latent print examination because that error was so substantial and so systemic that it was necessary to continue to evaluate that here so even in the report post other reviews opinion in this case the presidential council on science and technology advisors issued a report going through a field and talking about that and the f laboratory at issue in this case had made some changes in result in a field because it's the same unit at issue here as it was in mayfield it was perfectly appropriate for examination had i think actually necessary to help the jury truly understand zero desire to reference mayfield expressly by name the mayfield case it would not have been necessary had had the court allowed us to you know get into the boundaries of that i think as was seen through the crafting of the cross exam appropriate cross examination issues in this case the just report clearly used a strong hand in talking about what kinds of questions were going to be acceptable in other areas and some that work so i would have expected the district court in this case perhaps to say you know we'll talk to the examiner examiner ahead of time we don't even need to reference a spy name but it's a poor example of the failures of this particular laboratory that actually identified mr bond's there was only one photo array that actually existed in this case and that was one bank teller one of the bank tellers who was the only bank teller who testified regarding the harris robbery  the secondary robber which the government reported was mr bonds and someone who was six feet tall yet the evidence in this case showed that mr bonds was significantly shorter than that and then in the second robbery there were two mr bond's grandparents case the f b i and local law enforcement showed up at their door told that mr bonds had been involved in some kind of robbery had been arrested and then showed them a still photo it's very clear what the answer to that adenosine cation would have been the clear answer that people were supposed to get his that that was in fact mr bonds and we certainly don't dispute that the bank robber in those photographs look very similar to mr johns but even it even at trial his own grandmother said that she was not sure about one of those photographs so there was that identification but significantly something that the government has never addressed in this brief  below in the district court with significant video evidence of one of the robberies both of the robberies showing mr the person that they purported to say mr bond's extending an arm and receiving money repeatedly on video where there was no tact to mr bond significant almost full arms have to that was shown before the jury and a den of five by his grandmother as predating the robbery so we've actually physical evidence in this case that someone other than mr barnes was likely to the culprit so although there were these varied witness identification it's our perspective it was the grandmother just for the both his grandmother and father testified and again after this just a processes which i'm sure none of us would want if a loved one of ours were subjected to a criminal investigation to have a law enforcement see to get jennifer cation in that kind of manner  after that testimony we still have this video evidence which the government has never been able to discuss because there is no answer for that evidence other than that was not mr bonds so this is a circumstance for the error of the district court in refusing to allow cross examination in the case where we have for one of the bank robberies only six and then eight points of identification on the fingerprint which is rate we did ask about the one in three hundred six or eight it is my perspective that i think that that means little to later i think that is more of our scientific jargon that doesn't hit home in a way that a real life example of how systemic failures of this particular institution came to bear on a real person's like we're talking about later this seems like you're going back on what you m earlier because i think you receive your prejudice to say there was a guy named brandon mayfield in oregon who was arrested for a terrorist bombing in spain when my jury could say what are they talking about i think what the word does and and this particular case is it shows the amount of level of concern that this particular laboratory would have had to take to make sure to get it right now if the district court would have partisan talk about terrorism we still would have wanted to get into how someone with even more points of comparison and mr bonds from this same laboratory was able to go through all of these different steps and yet still come out with a false positive and the picaxe report but i do think that it's appropriate to consider that this particular evidence actually the not being allowed to get into it left an unfair impression for the jury and it was actually on helpful for the jury into determining that information because there was reform school may i please the court my name is clear coleman and i represent the united states of america the district court committed no error and limiting defendants cross permitted to extensively cross examine the expert witness and did in fact extensively cross examine the expert witness about the unreliable your potential on reliability of the eight the methodology s examples of that defense counsel was able to go into detail about the manner in which the fingerprint expert employed the h p methodology defense counsel able to ask the expert about the twenty eleven yury study which show that there was there was no zero error rate in fingerprint analysis defense counsel was also allowed opportunity to cross examine him much of the cross examination focused on these theories of confirmation contextual by defense counsel x the witness on several occasions about the fact that the examiner had knowledge that bonds was a suspect in the robberies and whether there were studies and whether there was the possibility that that information affected the examiners analysis in this case defense counsel was also able to explore the verification process and was able to point out on cross examination that  given the opportunity to provide meaningful cross examination and to put before the jury the potential i'm reliability of things are pretty examination and so based on this the sort of limitation that the court  argument that the jury the government failed to address the issue of the defendant's tattoos for on taxes not bill visible in the videos that information was made known to the jury through the defense and as the arbiter of fact in credibility the jury was able to view those videos and determine whether or not that affect the credibility of the government's evidence and so for these reasons unless the court has further questions justice under took those very studies and those studies were allowed to be used in the cross examination misc last correct purpose i guess so it's not it's not as if the you know the quality control issues in the review of mayfield was procedurally and with respect to the substance of this particular method was altogether excluded all i can tell that was excluded was a reference to brandon mayfield as an individual  attack in spain and living in oregon and you know the whole mass of facts that was in that case yesterday and when you speak of protocols and quality control methods the verification process that w was discussed in great detail during the cross examination of the witness was something that was instituted by the f b i post may feel as a way to address this issue that occurred of a positive identification to make  this cross examination was the illustration of a real life example of how this works our jurors are lay people they are not scientists although we could have won they are human beings who are trying to weigh information and they come from all walks of life and as i referenced earlier in the picaxe report one of one of the key points was the empirical estimated false positive rates are much higher than the general public and b extension most jurors would likely believe based on longstanding claims about the accuracy of fingerprint analysis and closed and i think what's significant here is talking about error rates talking about the fact that there is no such thing as zero certainty that means something to us as practitioners in this in the people who deal with that but the people who really have to make a decision it's recognized that they don't really understand what that means it's take away the terrorism take away madrid take away all of strip away all that stuff about mayfield the example of one human being from this particular laboratory being subjected to the same