## Facts

- Myshawn Bonds was charged with two counts of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) based on two Illinois robberies in 2015.
- The government disclosed that it intended to call FBI forensic examiner Kira Glass to testify about latent fingerprint identification.
- The government’s proof included latent fingerprints recovered from demand notes used in the robberies, which the government sought to use to link Bonds to the crimes.
- Glass conducted latent print examination using the ACE‑V process—analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification—where an examiner analyzes a latent print, compares it to known prints, evaluates similarities or differences, and then has a second examiner verify the conclusion.
- Bonds argued ACE‑V involved significant examiner judgment and that the “verification” step could be affected by bias because the verifying examiner might know the first examiner’s conclusion.
- Bonds pointed to the limited published data on error rates for latent fingerprint comparison and cited studies reporting error rates on the order of 1 in 18 and 1 in 306.
- Bonds moved before trial to exclude Glass’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, contending that ACE‑V latent fingerprint identification was not reliable enough for admission.
- Bonds also relied on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report, arguing the government had not shown the additional signs of reliability discussed in that report.
- Alternatively, Bonds asked the court to limit Glass’s testimony by barring her from stating an identification or “match,” or requiring her to qualify any identification by referencing the most conservative reported error rate (1 in 18).

## Issues

1. Whether latent fingerprint identification testimony based on ACE‑V is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
2. Whether concerns highlighted by the PCAST report, including subjectivity and potential bias in ACE‑V verification, require exclusion of the testimony.
3. If the testimony is admitted, whether the court should prohibit “match”/identification language or require the witness to quantify her conclusion using a particular numerical error rate (such as 1 in 18).

## Decision

- The court denied Bonds’s motion to exclude the government’s latent fingerprint testimony.
- The court found Glass qualified to testify regarding latent fingerprint identification.
- The court concluded that ACE‑V, as used in latent fingerprint examination, satisfied Rule 702 and Daubert for purposes of admission.
- The court held that Bonds’s challenges—subjective judgment, limited error‑rate literature, and concerns about verification bias—were proper subjects for cross-examination and competing proof and went to weight rather than admissibility.
- The court declined to bar Glass from testifying to an identification (a “match”) based on her examination.
- The court also declined to require Glass to attach a specific numerical error rate (including the 1‑in‑18 figure) as a condition of admission.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony is admissible if the witness is qualified, the testimony will help the trier of fact, and the opinion is based on reliable principles and methods reliably applied to the facts.
- Daubert requires the trial court to screen proposed expert testimony for reliability and relevance, using a flexible set of considerations (including testability, peer review, known or potential error rate, standards, and general acceptance) as appropriate for the field and the testimony.
- A method is not excluded merely because it involves human judgment or is subject to dispute; weaknesses commonly affect the weight of the evidence and are addressed through cross-examination, contrary evidence, and argument.
- Evidence of known or potential error rates informs the reliability inquiry, but Rule 702 does not require an expert to express an identification opinion as a numerical probability drawn from a single study.
- Scientific reports such as PCAST may inform the Rule 702 analysis, but they do not automatically control admissibility; the court evaluates the record and the specific proposed testimony.

## Conclusion

In United States v. Bonds, the Northern District of Illinois denied a pretrial Rule 702/Daubert motion seeking to exclude FBI examiner Kira Glass’s latent fingerprint identification testimony based on ACE‑V. The court ruled that ACE‑V latent fingerprint identification was sufficiently reliable for the jury to consider, and that Bonds’s objections—focused on subjectivity, possible verification bias, the PCAST report, and reported error rates—were matters for cross-examination and competing evidence rather than grounds for exclusion. The court allowed Glass to testify to an identification and refused to require her to frame her opinion using a specific numerical error rate such as 1 in 18.


United States v. Bonds, 2017 WL 4511061 (2017)