Opinion ID: 2492624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Challenge the Reliability of Fingerprint Evidence

Text: Johnston next alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the reliability of fingerprint evidence introduced at trial. Johnston asserts that counsel should have (1) called an expert witness to testify that fingerprinting is unreliable science and (2) objected to a question posed to the State's fingerprint expert. We disagree. Johnston specifically argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to consult and present an expert, namely Dr. Simon Cole, to rebut the State's forensic fingerprint evidence. The trial court denied this subclaim after reviewing Dr. Cole's proffered testimony and finding that the testimony would not have been admissible. See Owen v. State, 986 So.2d 534, 546 (Fla. 2008) (Trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to present inadmissible evidence.). The trial court relied on State v. Armstrong, 920 So.2d 769, 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), in which the Third District Court of Appeal specifically found inadmissible Dr. Cole's testimony in an unrelated case. [10] As in the Third District's case, Dr. Cole's opinion as to the reliability of fingerprint evidence had no connection to the latent fingerprints analyzed in this case and was not based on relevant facts. The trial court was therefore correct in determining that the proffered testimony would have been inadmissible and that counsel was not deficient for failing to present it. Additionally, the trial court did not err in concluding that counsel's failure to object to a particular question regarding fingerprint evidence did not constitute ineffective assistance. Johnston claims defense counsel should have objected to a question by the State on redirect on the basis that it addressed lay knowledge not proper for expert testimony. To the contrary, the State's question clarified information the defense elicited from expert Jones on cross-examination and properly sought expert opinion about the effect of fingerprint overlays on the ability to do a comparison analysis on a given fingerprintnot something that is within common lay knowledge. Therefore, Johnston has not shown that there was any basis for an objection by the defense, and Johnston has not established any probability that the trial court would have sustained such an objection. And because trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless challenge, Johnston did not satisfy his burden to demonstrate deficient performance under Strickland. See Heath v. State, 3 So.3d 1017, 1033 (Fla.2009). Accordingly, the trial court correctly rejected this claim.