such that the expert could not be confronted with specific instances in which his methodology failed in this case that was particularly an error and problem because of the specific nature of the experts testimony during the testimony the expert for the government stated that based on his methodology he was absolutely certain and that's a quote that these were prints of jewelry this the only way to effectively or meaningfully challenge such a strike certainty that is fine expert would be to point out to that expert and confront that expert with a report which he was aware of very notable case in which he decorated members of his field used his methodology and the methodology produced flawed and completely inaccurate results by not allowing what rule of evidence are we dealing with here we're dealing with rule of particular i may be missing something but i don't i don't specifically recall that is being cited as the basis what are our appeal is brought on is on the basis of the confrontation clause the united states he has a right to can effectively cross examine and confront the witness and when the witness makes the decision to say i'm absolutely certain and that witnesses at the same time knows a report and a case when his methodology you have a witness who says i was sure i was driving at a safe speed i'm very confident of that and you then propose to cross examine him by showing that on some other occasion someone else horrible violence it well worth would respect the jurors automatically give expert witnesses but with respect even to the person who's driving a car pieces i'm absolutely certain that this is this that i was riding at the speed limit and you can show on three other agreed that you couldn't in a tort case cross examine one person by saying somebody else on a different occasion caused an accident i thought it was a lay witness i agree when it's a expert witness who is using a specific methodology this being challenged and that expert witness acknowledges that he knows about a report showing that his methodology these things absolutely certain fail then i don't think that's the same at all just respectfully i don't think that's the same at all of course he was cross examined the minute that the fingerprint analysis wasn't one hundred percent reliable he also admitted it was possible to partial prints were in a match so the bottom line is this you were able to cross examine him on that point and he admitted it so you got to the evidence that you really wanted to present just didn't come in as part of the mayfield situation drug trial counsel was able to do that cross examination iran is describing i think that the statement of the witness was absolutely certain was ultimately exacerbating the problem made more difficult by the closing argument the government in which they went through this argument saying that fingerprint analysis has been used over the years all these times by the courts of suggesting infallibility i think that exploited the inability to my name is eric casella and i represent the united states just your court did not violate the defendant's sixth amendment right to confrontation and rather exercise its broad discretion in limiting the cross examination of the expert in  there was no violation here in part because the limitation did not prevent the jury from evaluating the expert witnesses testimony yesterday expert testified as to his methodology in this case how we employ that methodology and its limitations and as as the court just pointed out the defense counsel was allowed to cross examine the death expert at length about the limitations of the methodology and it listed that p prince of two individuals could in fact match and result in a misidentification and that fingerprint analysis is not one hundred percent foolproof according to defense counsel those statements were those goals those statements where the goals of the cross examination on the mayfield line and those goals were accomplished accomplished through different counsels cross there was also no violation of the defendant's sixth amendment rights a right to confrontation because the testimony saw was largely immaterial and marginally relevant as the court noted these were specific details that were sought to be elicited about another case a different fingerprint examiner who was applying the same methodology and came to a different result to allow defense counsel to go into the specifics of the mayfield case would have undoubtedly at length the trial and and potentially introduce confusion for the jury and finally there was no error in this case but have there been an error it's harmless given the overall strength of the government's case against the defendant here the jury heard evidence tying this defendant to the storage unit where the drugs and the gun the guns were recovered including two former drug customers of the defendant one of which testified that he gave the gun in question the one millimeter where the fingerprint was recovered from to the defendant to settle a drug debt and the defendant himself in fact testified that he had that he was tied to the unit had done drug deals with these two particular drug customers marijuana admittedly by the defendant he did not admit to cocaine but nonetheless admitted to being a drug dealer with these customers and without the unit on a daily basis for all those reasons the district court did not abuse its or excuse me did not abuse his discretion in fact in limiting the cross examination there was no sixth amendment right with respect to the question of whether there was indeed an error while some cross examination was a wow in light of the totality of the evidence in the government's argument with respect to sort of the infallibility of fingerprint analysis i think it assume the full potential of the cross examination that was excluded in that case that would be disregarding the fingerprint analysis and i don't think there's any sense in which one could say the verdict would be undisturbed with any confidence in the situation where the fingerprint evidence wasn't part of this case it was a fundamental and probably the most important part of the case so with that so is it your argument is that the fingerprint evidence should have been excluded no your honor only that only that the expert should have been confronted with the specific facts about the mayfield case in response to his claim of absolute certainty and confidence in his methodology well it was any evidence introduced concerning the reliability of fingerprint evidence there was cross examination on the reliability of fingerprint evidence trial counsel did not present the defendant's own fingerprint i mean presumably there are statistics on the receive fingerprint evidence there are i mean suppose it is a one th is ohio national life insurance company