Opinion ID: 783228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Daubert Inquiry for Fingerprint Evidence

Text: 32 Collins next argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct a Daubert 5 analysis on fingerprint evidence used to enhance his sentence. The court admitted fingerprint evidence to identify Collins as the same person convicted of prior offenses. Collins challenged whether the fingerprints from his previous custody dates bore enough indicia of identity with Collins's fingerprints to support a conclusion that Collins committed the prior crimes. Collins argues that the fingerprint analysis did not meet Daubert's requirements for admission and use at sentencing to trigger the mandatory life sentence. Collins asserts that this was not harmless error, and his failure to challenge the admission of this evidence below does not prevent this court from declaring it as plain error. 33 We will apply a plain-error analysis because Collins failed to object to the admission of the fingerprint expert's testimony at trial. Without an objection and a proper request for relief, the matter is waived and will receive no consideration on appeal absent plain error. McKnight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396, 1407 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting Owen v. Patton, 925 F.2d 1111, 1115 (8th Cir.1991)). Under plain-error review, relief is not warranted unless the defendant demonstrates an error that is plain and that affects the defendant's substantial rights. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 389, 119 S.Ct. 2090, 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). The court then has discretion to correct a forfeited error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (internal quotations and alterations omitted). 34 There is no plain error here. Fingerprint evidence and analysis is generally accepted. See, e.g., United States v. Havvard, 260 F.3d 597, 600 (7th Cir.2001). 6 We accepted the admissibility and reliability of fingerprint evidence in United States v. Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir. 2002), thus eliminating a challenge on the admissibility of such evidence on plain-error review. While such evidence may not always satisfy a Daubert challenge due to deficiencies in testing procedures, for example, there is no inherent fallacy in such evidence to make it inadmissible on plain-error review.