By: Derek Hawkins//August 9, 2016//
7th Circuit court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Joel Rivas
Case No.: 13-3526
Officials: POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Focus: 6th Amendment – confrontation
Appellant given ample opportunity to cross examine finger print examiner on fingerprint identification method, therefore 6th amendment right to confrontation was not infringed.
“Here, the limitation on cross‐examination did not prevent the jury from fully evaluating Rottman’s testimony. “The Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross‐examination, not cross‐examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 (1985). The judge’s ruling in this case only limited the defense’s ability to add additional detail about the potential fallibility of the ACE‐V method, and the Mayfield case was of at best marginal relevance. See United States v. Nelson, 39 F.3d 705, 708 (7th Cir. 1994) (finding no Sixth Amendment violation, stating “limitations on cross‐examination did not deny the defendants the opportunity to establish that the witnesses may have had a motive to lie; rather, the limitations denied them the opportunity to add extra detail to that motive”). Rivas’s defense counsel used the testimony she elicited from Rottman during her cross‐examination to argue in closing argument that two partial fingerprints from two different people could incorrectly result in a match using the ACE‐V method, and the specific details of the Mayfield case were not needed to make that point.”
Affirmed