Fingerprint was found on door in victim’s house
Justice Algernon Smith ruled last week that he would hear expert fingerprint evidence, although attorneys for Josue Carillo-Perez had argued it should be excluded.
The defendant is charged with murdering Martin Gareau in May 2008. He was found not guilty in October 2009 after choosing trial by judge alone, but the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and ordered a retrial.
The new trial began on 23 May. Toward the end of the first week there were legal arguments. At issue were two fingerprints, said to belong to Mr. Perez. They were reportedly found by police on a door at Mr. Gareau’s Beach Bay home, where his body was discovered after the May holiday weekend.
The question later pursued for one print in particular concerned whether it was under or on top of blood on the door.
If the judge had ruled in favour of the Defence, the prints would not have been admitted into evidence.
Anthony Donne QC, instructed by Attorney Anthony Akiwumi, had argued that the UK now requires identifications of prints by three experts as a minimum safeguard. Fewer than three should result in the prints not being admitted into evidence.
He also argued that the Crown’s two proposed witnesses on this subject did not meet the standards for experts. He also said proper notes and records pertaining to the prints had not been kept.
Senior Crown Counsel Trevor Ward replied that the protocol followed in this jurisdiction is the ACE+V procedure. That is, one examiner does the analysis, comparison and evaluation; the verification is done by another examiner.
Justice Smith summarised a review of the history of fingerprint evidence before coming to his conclusion. It has long been known that fingerprint patterns vary from person to person, and are unique and unchanging. Those patterns consist of ridges and furrows in the skin, the ridges being the raised parts. Comparison has been of the ridge characteristics.
The review the judge looked at clearly showed there has been uncertainty — “One could say confusion” – regarding the number of similar ridge characteristics to be found before prints could be said to match.
After a detailed review of the history of fingerprint standards, Justice Smith concluded that the history of fingerprint evidence showed that the system used in this jurisdiction does provide the necessary safeguard for the defendant.
He then reviewed the training and background of Mr. MacKay and Clare Hasart, both fingerprint examiners. He concluded they had acquired by study or experience sufficient knowledge to be regarded as experts.
The matters complained of by the Defence may go to what weight the judge attached to the evidence, he pointed out, but at that stage he was satisfied the method the examiners had used had sufficient safeguards.
Footprint expert Robert Kennedy was in the witness box on Friday, 3 June, when court adjourned. The trial was scheduled to resume later this week.
Related Videos
