Opinion ID: 1191763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Misidentification

Text: Fong also claims he should have been allowed to impeach O'Sullivan by introducing evidence showing O'Sullivan had misidentified a fingerprint in the Prime Time Rapist case in Tucson in 1986. Fong claims that as a result of that case O'Sullivan himself admitted his credibility was shot and he was fined $32,000. However, O'Sullivan did not admit that at the time in question his credibility was shot. Instead, as defendant's offer of proof makes clear, O'Sullivan said his credibility after the Prime Time Rapist case had been shot, but he proceeded to study, attend courses and seminars, give lectures, and re-establish himself in the field, and he was once again respected by his peers well before the murders in this case occurred. Additionally, O'Sullivan was not fined $32,000. He was demoted, which caused him to lose a certain amount of compensation and to be promoted at a lower pay scale. He calculated that over the course of his career, the demotion might cost him $32,000. However, even assuming that misidentification in another case might, under some circumstances, be admissible on credibility, there was no error in excluding such evidence here because defendant does not even dispute that in this case O'Sullivan properly identified the prints in question as belonging to defendant.