2020 IL App (1st) 172631
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Victim returned home on Sept. 1, 2015 to find his apartment ransacked and items (including headphones and laptop) missing; a headphone case had been moved.
- Evidence tech lifted four latent prints from the headphone case; examiner Daniel Dennewitz selected latent print “A2” as suitable for comparison.
- Dennewitz compared A2 to a known print from Cline’s right middle finger, diagrammed 9 matching points (of about 20 noted), and testified the prints came from the same source.
- The latent print was incomplete; Dennewitz acknowledged extrapolating/assuming unobserved areas matched Cline’s print and did not testify that a second examiner verified his identification.
- The trial court convicted Cline of residential burglary; on appeal the court reversed, holding the fingerprint evidence was insufficient because the examiner failed to verify his results and relied on assumptions about the missing portion of the print.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of conviction based solely on a single partial fingerprint | The partial print on the headphone case, matched to Cline, places him in the apartment and supports conviction | A single, partial print on a portable object is insufficient to prove Cline was present at time of burglary | Reversed; evidence insufficient where sole link is an unverified partial print and assumptions about missing detail |
| Whether expert followed accepted ACE‑V procedure (verification step) | Expert performed analysis and comparison; verification testimony may be hearsay and was not required to be elicited | Examiner did not verify his results with another examiner; that verification is integral to ACE‑V and critical where case rests on one partial print | Verification is a substantive part of the process; absence of verification testimony fatally undermines the identification |
| Temporal proximity (print made at time of offense) when print is on a portable item | Headphone case was found among stolen items and thus its print supports that it was left during the burglary | Headphone case is portable; no evidence owner never removed it or kept it at home, so print could have been made earlier or elsewhere | Temporal proximity not established by the record; portability of the item weakens inference that print was made during the burglary |
| Whether failure to call verifying examiner was fatal to State's burden | Lack of testimony about verification does not prove verification did not occur; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence | State has burden to present affirmative evidence on essential elements, including proper verification where standard procedure requires it | State’s failure to call the verifying examiner (or otherwise supply proof of verification) cannot be cured by silence; burden not met |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rhodes, 85 Ill. 2d 241 (1981) (fingerprint evidence must be in immediate vicinity and shown to be made at time of the offense to sustain conviction)
- People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363 (1992) (attendant circumstances and location can establish timing of a latent print)
- People v. Ford, 239 Ill. App. 3d 314 (1992) (portable-object fingerprint may support timing only if evidence shows the owner never removed the item from the home)
- People v. Safford, 392 Ill. App. 3d 212 (2009) (examiner’s identifications should be verified independently by another latent-print examiner)
- People v. Jones, 174 Ill. 2d 427 (1996) (failure to follow forensic testing protocol can render the evidence insufficient)
- People v. Clinton, 397 Ill. App. 3d 215 (2009) (improper forensic procedures can undermine proof of essential elements)
- People v. Gomez, 215 Ill. App. 3d 208 (1991) (circumstantial fingerprint evidence must satisfy both physical and temporal proximity)
- People v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196 (2013) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)