This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Amanda parked her blue Honda, in front of her fiancé's house. Amanda exited her vehicle. An individual wearing a white and black jacket approached her from behind, put a gun to her head, and demanded her money. The individual then took her purse and retrieved her vehicle's keys, which he threw to another individual who was standing nearby. That individual, later identified as D, grabbed the keys and got in the vehicle's driver's seat while the other individual got in the passenger's seat. D then drove away, and Amanda called 911. Officer Henry received a call for a 'carjacking' and began canvassing the area in a helicopter. Officer Henry observed a vehicle matching the description pulled over to the side of the road and parked. Officer Henry then observed an individual matching D's description get out of the vehicle's driver's seat and proceed on foot. Officer Henry relayed his observations to other officers on the scene, and D was apprehended. Jerome Taylor, a crime laboratory technician responded to the scene to gather evidence from the vehicle, which had been recovered. Taylor recovered several fingerprints from the vehicle's driver's side door. Those fingerprints were then sent to Linda Kolodner, an analyst for comparison. Kolodner ultimately determined that several of the prints recovered from the driver's side door of the vehicle matched D's fingerprints. Before a magistrate, D moved to exclude Kolodner from testifying arguing that Kolodner did not provide a sufficient factual basis to support her conclusions that some of the fingerprints recovered from the stolen vehicle matched D's. Kolodner was able to recall 'the process she used,' which entailed 'looking back and forth at the different prints,' but was unable to provide details as to 'what findings she made' and 'what points she identified' because 'she did not take notes regarding any of that.' D argued that she had 'no information' as to the basis of Kolodner's ultimate opinion that D's fingerprints matched some of the fingerprints recovered from the stolen vehicle. Counsel maintained that it would be erroneous for the court to 'simply rely on Kolodner's word' that her conclusions were appropriately reached. Kolodner testified that, ordinarily, she utilizes the 'ACE-V' method of fingerprint analysis. This involves 'looking at all the information in the latent print,' including 'overall ridge flow,' the presence of 'minutia,' or 'Galton points,' and 'any scars or creases that might be present.' She then goes 'looking at all the information in the latent print,' including 'overall ridge flow,' the presence of 'minutia,' or 'Galton points,' and 'any scars or creases that might be present.' The process continues until 'there's overwhelming agreement' that the two prints came from the same person. Ms. Kolodner received multiple 'lift cards,' each of which contained one or more fingerprints from the stolen vehicle. She compared the marked impressions on each of the lift cards to the known prints that had been taken from D. If there was a match or 'overwhelming agreement' between a latent print and D's known print, Kolodner indicated that conclusion by initialing and dating that particular print. She determined that there was an overwhelming agreement between three of the prints recovered and the known prints taken from D. Her findings were later independently verified by another fingerprint examiner. Kolodner admitted that, when she was looking for similarities between the latent prints and D's prints, she did not physically document the 'points of similarity' but rather took notes 'in her head.' She also admitted that she could not recall which 'features' she relied on to determine that there was a match, nor could she recall how many similarities she found in determining that there was 'overwhelming similarity.' She testified that she considered 'any and all information,' including 'overall ridge flow,' the presence of 'scars or creases,' the 'width and length of the ridges,' and the 'shape of the ridges.' Kolodner testified that each identification she made on the print card was marked with her initials and the date. She further testified that those notations were made when she had the print card and D's known print 'side by side.' When the State asked Kolodner if she waited 'until the very end' to make the notations, she responded, 'No. I make the notations as I do them.' D’s motion was denied. The court affirmed. D was found guilty and appealed. D appealed claiming Kolodner 'failed to provide a sufficient basis for her conclusion under Rule 5-702 when she did not document or testify to the factual basis on which she reached her conclusion.' D does not challenge the scientific technique of fingerprint identification or the reliability of the 'ACE-V' method, which Kolodner utilized. P claims that Kolodner 'presented a purely subjective comparison of the appearance of the prints without any data or reference to any objective findings on which her conclusions could be tested, in essence testifying that the fingerprints matched 'because I say so.''

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.