Court Opinion

ID: 9466147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:06:59.076021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:34.626772
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The presence of the fingerprint on the inside of the door handle, when the defendant disclaimed touching the truck at any time, far outweighs any possible prejudicial effect stemming from whether the prosecuting witness did or did not hear a noise before being accosted. Witnesses may be mistaken, they may deliberately lie, about their recollections of such fleeting matters as hearing a noise or overhearing a few words of a conversation. Physical facts do not lie. In this case the fingerprint was there and there is not the slightest suggestion that it might have gotten there at some other time or place and in an innocent fashion.
I would not invalidate this state conviction on constitutional grounds. Of course, we have no jurisdiction to do it on any other basis.