Opinion ID: 77711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Investigator Piper's Supplemental Opinions

Text: 21 Douglas first argues that the district court's admission of Piper's supplemental opinions regarding the age of the fingerprint on the vehicle door and the manner in which it was deposited violated Federal Rule of Evidence (Rule) 702. 3 Douglas contends that (1) Piper was not qualified to render an opinion as to the age of the fingerprint, (2) he used a flawed methodology in making the age determination, (3) Piper never visited the crime scene, and (4) Piper improperly relied only on photographic evidence. 22 A district court's decision regarding the admissibility of expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and we defer to the district court's ruling unless it is manifestly erroneous. Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333, 1339-40 (11th Cir. 2003). In determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, a district court considers whether (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matter he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert ; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) ( en banc ). 23 Here, following a Daubert hearing, the district court concluded that Piper's opinions were grounded in sufficient experience, education, training, background and more importantly in logic and practical application to meet the threshold requirements of admissibility as expert opinion. As to the supplemental opinions being delivered close to trial, the district court determined that there was sufficient time for the defense to challenge the findings. 24 Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Piper's supplemental opinions. Piper testified to his extensive experience and training in fingerprint analysis, including experience regarding the durability of fingerprints on different surfaces and in different environmental conditions and analysis of fingerprint smudging pressure. With regard to Piper's opinions, he presented sufficient information for the district court to conclude that the methodology by which he reached these opinions was reliable and reasoned. The testimony assisted the jury in weighing the arguments of both the government and defense counsel regarding the significance of the fingerprint evidence. Accordingly, it was properly admitted.