really and there is the criticism inside of that also talked about how the fact that in those in those situations the fingerprint examiner testified the evidence as it came out of those cases that that evidence rest then confirm which is the same argument that we're making here we're simply arguing it with a little bit different a lens and that's for mr because we have to look at that we were not we're not deciding whether or not this was admissible and looking to only look gets it in the door we're looking at whether or not the conclusions is whether or not the state's evidence has the state presented what the state chose to present is sufficient to prove mr klein guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but you know sufficiency of the evidence is an argument but the qualifications really is important is whether or not good that expert opinion even if it is an expert opinion is trustworthy enough to be believed that i listen to because i make here's an expert everybody agrees he's an expert whether he's a careful about it it's not a direct burden ship but it acts like that almost in the sense that you know this to chose to present this case over shows president's case and if this was an attack on the foundation or the overall admissibility of this expert opinion or on this conclusion then there would be some argument that the defense counsel has a duty to question about the verification process back to the studio stuck with the everson evidence the state chooses to presume to itself  understand trial counsel could have absolutely made this argument a lot better trial counsel's final argument was that you just simply couldn't trust that this was enough and although he didn't point out the exact points this clear is not limited even to the deferential standard to simply limit itself to the time for a bottle thank you thank you on an issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence not the miss ability of the evidence that means that we are looking at whether or not the evidence that was properly admitted at the trial was sufficient such that a reasonable trier of fact could find this defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt we are not here to discuss whether or not the trial for abused its discretion in allowing the expert testimony to be entered into the record office or benefits testified very clearly regarding his expert qualifications and as this court has already pointed out his qualifications  not challenged in any meaningful way he had been doing fingerprint analysis for a little over eight years i specifically in regards to expert testimony for a little over a year i believe he had been previously qualified in five cases about the lack of any testimony or the lack of any questions relating to the verification process that went into his analysis but very quickly what about the effect  is completely valid in this case because again this is an expert witness who had been qualified as an expert pursuant to really seven to five and if i may just briefly recertify is pretty explicit on this point  the expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons there for without st testifying to the underlying facts or data unless the court requires otherwise the expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross examination parts if i measure out st there is no case good i've seen that says that the verification itself is necessary in order for that evidence to be admissible secondly this is a fact case law but says quite clearly that an expert witness particularly a fingerprint expert may not testify as to the verification process of their analysis to do so would be  appears to be asking here is that this court create a rule that require it that people sue praying in this verification expert this would be a novel calibration of a breathalyzer machine that technician is going to be using samples that were prepared to play by another person who has subjective those samples to some kind of testing and verification process there is no case law says that this person cannot testify as to the calibration accuracy this machine without getting testimony from whoever prepared the sample and then verified it in this case we have an individual whose task was to analyze this fingerprint i did so well presented the evidence to do so would not have been permitted under any circumstance to testify i regarding the may or honor the verification word of the sensually be a fact underlying the expert's opinion that under her son no five is the defendant's burden to listen on cross examination no found a fingerprint on the jury box and that rose in that instance the only evidence linking the defendant to the burglary and in that case the decision was up held the conviction rest firms essentially the analysis here is whether or not this evidence this fingerprint the context of where it was found how it was found whether there is temporary and physical proximity to the crime but also by pointing out that they did not find the owner of the cases fingerprints anywhere on the fox and because of that it is reasonable for the trier of fact in this case that being the trial court to conclude that the fingerprints could only have been placed on that case at the time and location where the brocoli took place and with the expert's opinion this defended it was there for reasonable for the trier of fact to conclude that this defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt do you agree that it is critical the position of the people is that fingerprint evidence has been wrong accepted in the state of illinois and has passed the five tests on multiple occasions the issue here is there is a cross there's a process for essential and i would certainly agree with this clerk that the acronym ace v the v stands for verification the fingerprint experts themselves to acknowledge that verification is one of the critical aspects however again your honor again i would point you to were seven o five the verification process being an underlying fact related to the expert's opinion which was the defendant's burden to raise on cross examination as the sc observed previously that did not happen defense attorney asks numerous questions relating to the pressure of the print but at no point ever challenge the expert's opinion on foundation i would point out that the expert rose asked to provide his opinion two separate times on direct examination and render his opinion with no objection in both occasions i'd also point out best the partiality  there was quite clear in his responses then indirect and crossed in addressing this issue and made it abundantly clear at the time this she believed in his expert opinion that there was never enough evidence to create a positive match the defendant had the opportunity to challenge that on foundational grounds for her to cross the expert and try to undermine the wages testimony that didn't happen  there's a lot to respond to but i'll endeavor to be brief st off we're so little five i don't think is the savior safe for the state believes that it's real seven o five purpose was to get around the hypothetical question often came up with expert testimony it really deals more with the whether or not that expert testimony in that opinion can get through the gateway into evidence all the idea that the defendant is the defendant's burden to elicit these facts or if it goes towards the foundational underpinning this is a sufficiency of the evidence as much here is the state argued it didn't simply because this is especially the evidence it is stuck with the evidence that it decided to present just as we're stuck with defense counsel maybe not ask make me not making the best argument as we pointed out the state witness is an ideas an identification witness and that identification witness doesn't make an inquiry the invocation of the defendant is not uncommon because the state never asked it's not incumbent upon the defendant to get up and fix that error challenging that identification it's the same kind of activity here defense counsels under your obligation challenge and this is a critical step as the f b i scholarly material as the f b i reports and all this cold material indicated saying i want to address something real fast the issue in this case is not asking to create a rule requiring verification are simply saying is that the facts of this case when you consider everything else that's just not enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt mr klein is advocating for any sort of broader war or anything like that and run this thing  mr kline admitted that he had been in the apartment maybe you don't need that verification but when you have nothing else and you write relying entirely on this if you don't have that verification if you don't follow the steps that you pointed out earlier if you miss a step in the end that's simply not enough because