## Facts

- Varian Scott was charged with forging prescriptions for medications.
- Police seized prescription pads that contained fraudulent prescriptions.
- Investigators found unknown fingerprints on the prescription pads.
- At trial, the United States sought to introduce fingerprint identification testimony through Jessica LeCroy, a fingerprint examiner.
- LeCroy used the ACE-V procedure (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification) to compare latent prints from the prescription pads with known inked prints attributed to Scott.
- Using ACE-V, the examiner compared the latent and known prints for shared characteristics and, based on the quantity and quality of those shared characteristics, reached an opinion about whether the prints matched.
- The ACE-V procedure was described as a formal, established methodology and as generally accepted in the fingerprint examination field.
- LeCroy testified that, in her opinion, the fingerprints on the prescription pads matched Scott’s fingerprints.
- The district court admitted LeCroy’s opinion testimony.
- Scott was convicted and appealed, challenging the admission of the fingerprint testimony.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert by admitting fingerprint identification testimony based on the ACE-V methodology?

## Decision

- The court affirmed Scott’s conviction.
- The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting LeCroy’s ACE-V-based fingerprint identification testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a trial court must ensure that opinion testimony offered as scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge is both relevant and reliable.
- Daubert’s reliability inquiry is flexible; courts may consider factors such as testing, peer review, known or potential error rate, standards controlling the technique’s operation, and general acceptance, depending on the context.
- Fingerprint comparison testimony may be admitted when the proponent shows that the method used reflects a recognized process in the field and that the witness applied that process to the facts of the case.
- A structured comparison process like ACE-V, coupled with general acceptance in the fingerprint examination community and a verification step, can support admissibility under Rule 702.

## Conclusion

United States v. Scott, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23720 (2010), affirmed a conviction for forging prescriptions after holding that the district court properly admitted a fingerprint examiner’s identification testimony. The appellate court concluded that ACE-V is a recognized, formal methodology generally accepted in fingerprint examination and that admitting the examiner’s match opinion fell within the trial court’s Rule 702 and Daubert discretion.
