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

To show that Dockins (D) was a convicted felon, the government introduced a judgment of conviction on state robbery charges of Carl Smith. The government attempted to link this conviction to D by establishing, through the testimony of handwriting and fingerprint experts, that the signature on the fingerprint card and the fingerprints themselves were those of D. With the fingerprint expert on the stand, the government offered the judgment of conviction and the fingerprint card into evidence over D's objection on grounds of authentication. After trial, D moved for a Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative for a New Trial, claiming that the exhibits had not been properly authenticated. The trial court held a hearing on the authenticity of the exhibits and found that the judgment of conviction was admissible because D did not properly object to it. The court found that the fingerprint card was not self-authenticating under Rule 902 since it was not under seal, and the signature had not been certified as genuine by an officer of the police department which made the arrest. However, the court found that the card was admissible under Rule 901.

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.