On August 14, 2022, a man dressed in black and wearing a camouflage baseball hat entered a Ross store on Coors Blvd. He approached the cash register with a box of tweezers but, instead of paying, allegedly pulled out a handgun and demanded money from two cash registers at the front of the store. After obtaining the cash, he left the tweezer box on the counter.
An officer from the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) responded to the scene and interviewed witnesses. Crime Scene Specialist Laura Laskar later lifted latent fingerprints from the tweezer box. The APD Crime Lab analyzed these prints but found no matches in the fingerprint databases.
Months later, at the request of Task Force Officer Isaac Romero, Lydia Lujan from the APD Crime Lab compared the latent print to known prints of Mr. Roper (Defendant). Following a one-to-one comparison, Lujan identified Roper as the source of the latent print, although she noted distortions and scattered ridge details on the print card. On September 3, 2024, the United States filed a notice of its intent to call Lujan as an expert witness in fingerprint analysis at trial.
Defendant filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Lydia Lujan, Plaintiff’s Latent Fingerprint Expert witness.
Latent Fingerprint Expert Witness
Lydia Lujan has a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and has spent over three decades in law enforcement. Specific to her testimony in this case, she worked as a Forensic Scientist — Latent Fingerprint Examiner from 2014 to 2023. During this time, Lujan completed several hundred hours of advanced training. She is a member of the “International Association for Identification” and has given numerous presentations on latent print identification.
Discussion by the Court
Roper argues that the Court should exclude Lujan’s testimony because: (1) her anticipated testimony does not meet the admissibility requirements in Rule 702, and (2) her conclusion that Jason Roper was the source of the latent print collected from the scene of a robbery on August 14, 2022, and related opinions about fingerprint analysis overstates what the methodology reliably supports (3) Roper further argues that the ACE-V methodology “is subjective (4) he claims that Lujan impermissibly proposes to assert with “absolute or one hundred percent certainty” that he is the source of the latent print.
I. Lujan is Qualified
The Court found Lujan to have the specialized knowledge required to assist jurors in this case. After reviewing her credentials and prior testimony, it concluded that she was well-qualified. Lujan had previously testified as an expert in other cases, further solidifying her qualifications to testify here. Thus, Lujan was sufficiently qualified to testify as an expert witness in the field of latent fingerprint examination.
II. Lujan’s Testimony is Reliable and Admissible
The Court thoroughly analyzed Lujan’s testimony and deemed it reliable and admissible. It recognized that trial judges have discretion in deciding how to evaluate expert testimony. Once the testimony appears reliable, it should be admitted. The Court noted that any challenges to her testimony, including cross-examination or presenting contrary evidence, would allow the jury to decide how much weight to give it. Additionally, the Court dismissed arguments questioning the admissibility. It pointed out that these arguments only affected the weight of the testimony, not whether it should be allowed.
A. Daubert Analysis
The Court conducted a thorough Daubert analysis, recognizing that the factors outlined in Daubert serve as helpful guidelines for assessing an expert’s methodology. It began by examining whether the theory had been tested and noted that numerous studies had reported error rates in fingerprint analysis. The Court acknowledged that Lujan testified her methodology underwent peer review, specifically referring to the “V” in the ACE-V method, which emphasizes validation. The Court also highlighted that fingerprint identification had been extensively published in scholarly journals.
Next, the Court considered the known or potential error rate, and found that the evidence indicated a low false positive rate of 0.1%, with literature suggesting the overall error rate is less than 1%. Each of the first three Daubert factors weighed in favor of the admissibility of Lujan’s testimony.
The fourth factor involved the existence and maintenance of standards in the field. Although Roper challenged the subjective nature of the ACE-V method, Lujan explained that her extensive training and adherence to procedural standards enhanced the reliability of her analyses. This factor presented a mixed view regarding admissibility.
Finally, the Court evaluated whether fingerprinting had achieved general acceptance within the scientific community. The Court concluded that the scientific community well-established and accepted fingerprint analysis as a reliable identification method.Consequently, the Court found that the overall Daubert analysis strongly favored the admissibility of Lujan’s testimony, asserting that Roper’s challenges pertained to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
B. Analysis of Roper’s Argument
Roper argued that Lujan’s expert opinion lacked sufficient facts, data, and methodology for reliability. He focused on the subjective nature of the ACE-V methodology. He claimed that the quality of the analyzed print was inadequate for proper comparison. However, the Court clarified that an expert’s opinion must reflect a reliable application of principles to the facts of the case. It asserted that the subjective nature of fingerprint comparison does not undermine its reliability.
The Court noted that while the ACE-V method relies on subjective judgment, established standards exist within the fingerprint examiner community to ensure quality. Lujan testified that she had never produced a false positive result, only false negatives. This aligned with the inherent nature of fingerprint identification. The Court highlighted that errors in fingerprint matching are rare. It stated that Lujan’s testimony remained reliable and admissible under Rule 702.
Regarding Roper’s specific concerns about the latent print being distorted, Lujan maintained that it was adequate for analysis. The Court stated that any doubts about the print’s quality were appropriate for cross-examination but did not warrant exclusion of her testimony. Further, The Court acknowledged that, given the average juror’s lack of familiarity with fingerprint identification, Lujan’s expert testimony would be beneficial.
Additionally, the Court set parameters for Lujan’s trial testimony. It prohibited her from claiming a “one hundred percent” match, noting that she did not make such assertions during the hearing. Additionally, the Court allowed her to express her opinion that fingerprint analysis is more reliable than forensic DNA analysis, based on her “twin” theory, which emphasizes the uniqueness of fingerprints even among identical twins. The Court found no merit in Roper’s objections and declined to limit Lujan’s testimony in the ways he requested.
Held
The Court concluded that Lydia Lujan was qualified to provide expert opinion testimony in the case due to her knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education. It found that her extensive background in the fingerprinting field provided a reliable basis for her proposed testimony, which she aptly applied to the facts of the case.
Key Takeaway:
The Court found that fingerprint analysis met the Daubert standards, having undergone testing, peer review, and widespread acceptance, despite its subjective nature. Concerns about distortion in the prints were suitable for cross-examination but did not warrant the exclusion of her testimony. The Court emphasized that such testimony would aid the jury’s understanding, and any challenges would affect the weight rather than the admissibility. Additionally, the court set limits on her claims of certainty, maintaining the reliability of her conclusion.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | United States v. Roper |
| Docket Number | 1:23cr1617 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of New Mexico |
| Order Date: | October 8, 2024 |
Leave a Reply