UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-57-JD

Gordon Reid

SEALED ORDER

Gordon Reid filed an ex parte sealed motion requesting funds

to pay for a forensic fingerprint analyst who would “review the

discovery reports and photographs . . . and the Government’s

analysis or lack thereof, of the latent fingerprint evidence and

items which could have or should have been examined for latent

fingerprint evidence.” The court denied the motion because Reid

had not explained how the fingerprint analyst’s evidence was

necessary for his defense. Reid now moves for reconsideration of

that order, based on a new theory that he contends he did not

have time to pursue initially because of the time constraints

imposed by the court’s scheduling order.

For purposes of reconsideration, Reid asserts that he

intends to use the services of the fingerprint analyst to conduct

“fingerprint comparison of the latent fingerprint impressions

lifted off of the six-pack of Budweiser found in the area of the

Merrimack County Attorney’s Office Building, and those of several

officers involved in the so-called ‘investigation’ of this case.” 

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 250 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Reid contends that such evidence will be used to attack the

integrity of the investigation and prosecution of this case, in

particular, to bolster his defense that the government is biased

and prejudiced against him and has fabricated or mishandled

evidence. Specifically, Reid argues that the fingerprint analyst

will help him show that “(1) the photographs of the six pack of

Budweiser were posed, (2) that evidence has been fabricated,

and/or (3) that evidence has been mishandled.”

Even if this newly-minted theory had been timely presented,

it would have been unavailing. As the court has previously

explained to Reid, in order to obtain payment for services under

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1), he must convince the court that the

requested services are necessary for an adequate representation. 

United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 218 (1st Cir. 1996). A

fingerprint expert is necessary only if fingerprint evidence is

likely to be pivotal in the case, such as when that evidence

provides “the primary means of connecting the defendant to the

crime.” Id.; see also United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88,

118, (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. Walborn, 730 F.2d 192, 194

(5th Cir. 1984). At a minimum, a defendant must have a plausible

defense that requires expert services, otherwise the government

could be forced to finance a “fishing expedition.” United States

v. King, 356 F.3d 774, 778 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 250 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Reid’s request falls into the category of a fishing

expedition with little or no justifiable basis. The beer is not

the only means of connecting him to the scene of the crime and is

far from a pivotal piece of evidence in the case. More

importantly, whether or not the police officers’ fingerprints are

found on the beer will prove little or nothing because it is

undisputed that the police found the beer and handled it. 

Therefore, Reid has not shown, on reconsideration, that the

court erred in denying his request for the services of a forensic

fingerprint analyst. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for

reconsideration (document no. 248) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 7, 2006

cc: Gordon Reid, pro se

Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 250 Filed 04/07/06 Page 3 of 3