People v. Negron
2012 IL App (1st) 101194
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of residential burglary; fingerprint and DNA evidence were central to the case.
- A fingerprint examiner testified that latent prints from the scene matched defendant’s palm prints; defense argued insufficient foundation and lack of notes.
- Cellmark performed DNA analysis on a tissue sample; Gina Pineda, a Cellmark expert who did not perform the testing, testified regarding the analysis and notes.
- DNA results matched defendant when compared to a buccal swab from defendant; multiple ISP and Cellmark personnel were involved in processing and verification.
- Kovacs, a latent fingerprint examiner, testified using the ACEV framework and confirmed results with a second set of prints; defense cross-examined about lack of notes and threshold points.
- Trial court admitted both fingerprint and DNA testimony; defendant challenged posttrial, arguing confrontation and foundation issues; appellate court upheld admission as proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fingerprint foundation adequacy | Kovacs laid specific process and match; no fixed points required. | No notes or specified points undermined foundation. | Foundation adequate; admissible ACEV-based identification. |
| Confrontation and DNA testimony | Williams permits nonperforming analyst testimony about DNA report; not testimonial. | Crawford/Williams limit testimony by nonperformers; Confrontation violated. | DNA testimony admissible under Williams-Leach framework; not a Confrontation Clause violation; harmless error if any. |
| Impact of nonperforming analyst testimony in a jury trial | DNA evidence admissible; foundation laid by independent analysis and technical review. | Risk of testimonial value despite nonperformer; Crawford concerns apply. | Not problematic; admissible under Williams/Leach; harmless given fingerprint strength. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mitchell, 2011 IL App (1st) 083143 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (fingerprint foundation supported by detailed methodology and cross-check)
- People v. Ford, 239 Ill. App. 3d 314 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 1992) (points-of-comparison threshold is weight, not admissibility)
- People v. Safford, 392 Ill. App. 3d 212 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2009) (insufficient detail about points of comparison affects admissibility)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (Supreme Court 2012) (DNA report testimony by nonperforming analyst permissible (plurality))
- Leach, 2012 IL 111534 (Illinois Supreme Court 2012) (confrontation primary-purpose analysis applied to forensic reports)
- People v. Johnson, 406 Ill. App. 3d 805 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2010) (cellmark DNA testimony foundation precedent)
- People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. Supreme Court 2010) (DNA analyst testimony foundation; not merely regurgitation of data)