UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD

Gordon Reid

SEALED ORDER

Gordon Reid is charged with one count of robbery under the

Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. His first trial ended in a mistrial

when the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. In

anticipation of a new trial, Reid moves ex parte pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) for services from three expert witnesses to

address certain evidence that he expects the government to

introduce at the second trial. Reid has been determined to be

indigent. 

Reid requests expert services for footwear impression

identification, forensic meteorology, and for fingerprint

identification. To be entitled to authorization to employ

experts under the Criminal Justice Act, Reid must convince the

court that the requested expert services are necessary for an

adequate representation. § 3006A(e)(1); United States v.

Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 218 (1st Cir. 1996). “Generally, expert

services have been found necessary when the proffered expert

testimony was pivotal to the indigent defendant’s defense.” Id.

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 6
2

Reid is charged with robbing the Hess Gas Station and

Convenience Store on North Main Street in Concord, New Hampshire,

on February 13, 2005. The clerk of the store, Renee King,

testified that Reid took cash from the cash register and a sixpack of Budweiser beer. A customer at the store at the time of

the robbery, David Broadbent, identified Reid as the only other

customer in the store. Deborah Poirier testified that Reid drove

her car, with her as a passenger, from Manchester where they had

been smoking crack cocaine, to Concord, intending to rob a

convenience store to get money to buy more crack cocaine. 

At Reid’s first trial, police officers testified that a sixpack of Budweiser beer was found not far from the Hess Station,

that footprints in the snow were found in the area, and that

currency was found near Reid when he was apprehended. The police

took photographs of and made impressions from the footprints

found near the scene of the robbery. Reid acknowledged that the

knit hat, boots, and leather coat the government produced at

trial belonged to him.

Timothy Jackson of the New Hampshire State Police Forensic

Laboratory testified about the footwear impressions and

identified Reid’s boots as the footwear that made the prints in

the snow near the scene of the robbery. The government also

called Lisa Corson, a criminalist who works with fingerprint

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 6
3

evidence at the New Hampshire State police Forensic Laboratory. 

Corson testified that she examined fingerprint lifts from the

crime scene and did not find any matches to Reid. She also

testified about the nature of fingerprint evidence.

A. Footwear Impression Expert

Reid asks the court to approve services by a forensic shoe

impression identification analyst, Bodziak Forensics, to

initially review the government’s evidence and the reports,

photographs, and methodologies used by Jackson on behalf of the

government. Reid states that if appropriate, he will call an

employee from Bodziak Forensics to testify as an expert at trial. 

In support of his request, Reid provides background and expert

qualification information about William Bodziak, who founded

Bodziak Forensics, and states that his hourly fee would be

$200.00. Reid further represents that Bodziak estimated a total

of $4,000.00 in fees if he or one of his associates provided the

requested services, including testifying at trial. 

Reid contends that these services are necessary because the

government relied heavily on Jackson’s testimony that the

footprints near the Hess Station were made by Reid’s boots. The

court agrees that Reid is entitled to expert services under §

3006A(e)(1) for footwear impression analysis.

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 6
4

B. Forensic Meteorologist

At trial, the government introduced photographs that

witnesses testified were taken on the night of the robbery. It

was undisputed that it had snowed during the day of the robbery. 

While some of the photographs showed fresh snow, others did not. 

Reid requests the services of Kevin Williams or Joshua Nichols,

who are employed by Weather-Track, Inc., in Penfield, New York,

to review the photographs and the weather records for the day of

the robbery both to assist in educating Reid for cross

examination of the government’s witnesses and to provide an

opinion as to whether the photographs are consistent with the

weather on that day. Reid provides Kevin Williams’s credentials

and advises that Williams would charge $125.00 per hour, other

than for testimony at trial, that would total $750.00. He

charges an additional undisclosed fee for testimony at trial.

Reid argues that the services of Williams or his associate,

Nichols, are necessary to address expected government evidence

about the differences in the photographs with respect to snow. 

The court authorizes Reid to obtain the services of Williams or

Nichols as he proposes.

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 4 of 6
5

C. Fingerprint Expert

Reid requests authorization to employ a fingerprint

identification analyst to first review the government’s

fingerprint evidence and, if appropriate, to testify at trial

about his opinions. Reid seeks the services of Ivan Futrell, who

previously worked with the FBI and is certified in latent

fingerprint examination. Futrell estimated that his services

would cost approximately $2500.00.

At the first trial, the government presented evidence, as

noted above, that Reid’s fingerprints were not found at the Hess

Gas Station. Reid anticipates that the government will downplay

that lack of evidence. Reid does not explain specifically,

however, in what way Futrell’s expected expert assistance is

necessary for his defense.

Given the testimony at the first trial, it is undisputed

that Reid’s fingerprints were not identified among latent

fingerprints taken from the Hess Station. In this case,

fingerprint evidence is not “the primary means of connecting the

defendant to the crime” nor does it provide any evidence of

Reid’s connection to the robbery. Manning, 79 F.3d at 218. 

Instead, it appears that Reid hopes to use Futrell to show that

he is not connected to the robbery because his fingerprints were

not found at the scene. He has not provided any basis for such a

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 5 of 6
6

theory, however, much less a basis for concluding that those

services would be “pivotal” to the defense. Id. Therefore,

Reid’s motion for authorization of a fingerprint expert is

denied.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s ex parte motions

for services, a footwear impression expert and a meteorologist,

(documents no. 178 and 179) are granted. The defendant’s motion

for a fingerprint expert (document no. 180) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 13, 2006

cc: Gordon Reid, pro se

Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 6 of 6