Opinion ID: 3014242
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: reliability criticisms, but excluding (3) This appeal by Byron Mitchell from a testimony about whether latent fingerprint judgment in a criminal case raises identification is a “science.” Within that important questions concerning the framework, the exclusion of evidence that admissib ility of latent fingerprint latent fingerprint identification is a science identification evidence under Fed. R. Evid. was proper under Kumho Tire Co. v. 702. We adjudicate on the basis of a Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). voluminous record developed at a Daubert The final fingerprint-related issue hearing, see Daubert v. Merrell Dow concerns the putative withholding by the Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 government of a Department of Justice (1993), and explore in considerable detail solicitation for research proposals directed 3 at validating the reliability of latent First Trial and Appeal f i n ge r p r int i d e n t if i c a ti o n . T h is This case began in 1991 when two solicitation, Mitchell contends, was not men with handguns robbed an armored only improperly and intentionally withheld car employee of approximately $20,000 by the government in violation of its as he entered a check cashing agency at obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 29th Street and Girard Avenue in North U.S. 83 (1963), but would have been Philadelphia. The robbers then got into a powerful evidence, not only substantively beige car driven by a third person, but also to impeach the government’s engaging in gunfire with the armored car expert witnesses who testified that latent employees as they fled. The beige car, fingerprint identification was a well- which had been stolen about an hour established discipline with a strong and beforehand, was abandoned by the well-verified foundation. The District robbers roughly a mile from the agency. Court concluded that the solicitation was The government sought to prove at trial not material under the “reasonable that the robbers were William Robinson probability of a different outcome” (a/k/a “Bookie”) and Terrence Stewart standard of Brady and its progeny. We (a/k/a “T”), and that the getaway driver agree. was Mitchell. According to the The remaining issue on appeal is government, the robbery had a fourth whether plain error was committed by the participant, Kim Chester, who knew of admission of testimony that a key the plans, helped case the robbery site, government witness gave a statement to and assisted the others in spending the the FBI and testified at a prior proceeding. proceeds of the robbery. Chester Mitchell characterizes the admission of testified for the prosecution at Mitchell’s this evidence as improper under the trial as an uncharged accomplice. Both hearsay rules, Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802. We Robinson and Stewart died before trial, conclude that testimony about the and thus Mitchell was the sole defendant. existence of a statement is not itself a Mitchell was charged with conspiracy “statement”; that the testimony was not to commit and commission of Hobbs Act “offered . . . to prove the truth of the robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and use of matter asserted,” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), and and carrying a firearm during a crime of thus not inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In the first 802; and that, at all events, the plain error trial, at which Mitchell was convicted of standard is not met. We will therefore all counts, the government introduced affirm the judgment. into evidence an anonymous note that had been left in the front seat of the abandoned beige car, apparently written