This particular case was about a crime that happened in the early nineties. An armored car was held up at gunpoint and twenty thousand dollars was taken from inside of it (Precedential, 2004). It was thought that the robbery itself was performed by William Robinson and Terrence Stewart. Byron Mitchell had waited in a car nearby as their getaway driver. By the time the trials occurred, Mitchell was the only one left alive save for a fourth man that was thought to have helped them case the area they were going to rob and subsequently he was the only one that stood trial for the robbery.
The fourth man, named Kim Chester, involved with the crime was one of the witnesses that testified against Mitchell. When Mitchell was arrested he was charged with “with conspiracy to commit and commission of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and use of and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)” (Precedential, 2004). At the end of the trial, he was found guilty of each different charge that was issued against him. The guilty verdict was due to some evidence found in the getaway car after the team of robbers abandoned it and police officers located it. The police officers located a note underneath one of the seats in the vehicle that was suspected of being the getaway car. It had been left anonymously and described the car that the robbers had swapped their current one for. Mitchell later appealed his case and it was during this time that the note was thrown out. The only thing then that linked him to the crime was some fingerprints that had been found in the getaway car that matched his own, but they were in poor condition (Precedential, 2004). After the note was thrown out, the courts had to decide whether or not the fingerprint evidence should be allowed as well since it was in poor condition. They held another hearing on it and whether it met the Daubert standard in 1999. It was a five day process where no real written decision came from it – which meant it had to go through another appeal afterwards (Cole, 2004). However, the hearing was put in place to …show more content…
He stated that the FBI, “does not rely on a minimum “points” standard for matching fingerprints” (Precedential, 2004). This was due to the fact that it was left up to each examiner as to how many points determined if a print was a match to another. If any mistakes were made during this process than it would have been caught afterwards. This was due to the fact that each fingerprint match would need to be peer reviewed by at least two other examiners.
Standards were different between each examiner that handled a fingerprint. Some might think it would be acceptable to have fewer points of references that are similar between the two prints, but another one might require more. The prints matched had to meet the standard of each examiner and if they did than there was room for no error when it came to matching them to an unknown set of prints. The likelihood of error being at zero meant that there was no chance that, if the prints found in the car were examined by multiple people and still found to be a match, they were all
The fourth man, named Kim Chester, involved with the crime was one of the witnesses that testified against Mitchell. When Mitchell was arrested he was charged with “with conspiracy to commit and commission of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and use of and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)” (Precedential, 2004). At the end of the trial, he was found guilty of each different charge that was issued against him. The guilty verdict was due to some evidence found in the getaway car after the team of robbers abandoned it and police officers located it. The police officers located a note underneath one of the seats in the vehicle that was suspected of being the getaway car. It had been left anonymously and described the car that the robbers had swapped their current one for. Mitchell later appealed his case and it was during this time that the note was thrown out. The only thing then that linked him to the crime was some fingerprints that had been found in the getaway car that matched his own, but they were in poor condition (Precedential, 2004). After the note was thrown out, the courts had to decide whether or not the fingerprint evidence should be allowed as well since it was in poor condition. They held another hearing on it and whether it met the Daubert standard in 1999. It was a five day process where no real written decision came from it – which meant it had to go through another appeal afterwards (Cole, 2004). However, the hearing was put in place to …show more content…
He stated that the FBI, “does not rely on a minimum “points” standard for matching fingerprints” (Precedential, 2004). This was due to the fact that it was left up to each examiner as to how many points determined if a print was a match to another. If any mistakes were made during this process than it would have been caught afterwards. This was due to the fact that each fingerprint match would need to be peer reviewed by at least two other examiners.
Standards were different between each examiner that handled a fingerprint. Some might think it would be acceptable to have fewer points of references that are similar between the two prints, but another one might require more. The prints matched had to meet the standard of each examiner and if they did than there was room for no error when it came to matching them to an unknown set of prints. The likelihood of error being at zero meant that there was no chance that, if the prints found in the car were examined by multiple people and still found to be a match, they were all