Methodology for Footwear Impression Evidence He also teaches crime scene technicians on the documentation of crime scenes and was the primary instructor of proposed expert witness Pitzen in the areas of footwear, tire tracks and physical comparison of torn items. Vanderkolk authored the Indiana State Police training manual for latent fingerprints, footwear, and tire tracks examinations. He also maintains proficiency in footwear, tire track, physical comparisons of broken and torn items, fingerprint examinations and firearm toolmark examinations. Vanderkolk oversees laboratory operations and supervises crime scene technicians. Vanderkolk ("Vanderkolk"), manager of the Indiana State Police Laboratory, Fort Wayne, Indiana and a criminalist. The Government also proffered testimony from a second witness, John R. whose exclusive duties at the FBI laboratory relate to footwear and tire tread evidence. The first witness, Sandra Wiersema ("Wiersema"), is a forensic examiner with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory in Washington D.C. With these principles in mind, the Court now turns to the background for the testimony the Government seeks to offer at trial.Īt the evidentiary hearing, the Government offered the testimony of two witnesses to establish the scientific reliability of shoe print impression evidence in general. Thus, as the term "in limine" suggests, a court's decision on such evidence is preliminary in nature and subject to change. The court will entertain objections on individual proffers as they arise at trial, even though the proffer *859 falls within the scope of a denied motion in limine. Denial merely means that without the context of the trial, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded. Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial. Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context. 1398 (N.D.Ill.1993), the court set forth the considerations governing a motion in limine as follows: This court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. "Federal district courts have the power to exclude evidence in limine pursuant to their authority to manage trials." Charles v. It is to this issue the court turns presently. Allen's motion in limine is directed at this testimony and he argues that the shoe print evidence is not reliable scientific evidence and will not be helpful to the jury in deciding an issue of fact. The Government concedes that Pitzen will not and cannot positively identify the shoe the defendant was wearing as the shoe print left at the scene of the bank burglary, only that the Defendant's shoe "could be" the shoe that was in the bank. Specifically, Pitzen is anticipated to testify that a gelatin impression of an unknown shoe print left at the scene of the bank burglary corresponds in size and physical characteristics with the shoe the defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest. In its case in chief, the Government intends to call Fort Wayne Police Forensic Examiner, Thomas Pitzen ("Pitzen"), to offer testimony regarding the comparison of a shoe print left inside the burglarized bank with the footwear recovered from the defendant at the time of his arrest. The indictment alleges that on or about October 28, 2001, the defendant entered or attempted to enter the Standard Federal Bank located at 4036 Coldwater Road, Fort Wayne, Indiana, whose deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with intent to commit a felony therein, namely taking and carrying away with intent to steal property and money belonging to and in the care, custody and control of the bank. The court shall reserve ruling on the specific witness testimony after a supplemental Daubert hearing to be held on Jat 3:00 p.m.Īllen is charged in a single count indictment with a violation of 18 U.S.C. After a thorough review of the evidentiary record and the briefs, the court herein confirms the general admissibility of footwear impression evidence under Daubert and, to that extent, Defendant's Motion in Limine is DENIED. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on Apand took the matter under advisement pending the submission of briefing on the issues. 2d 469 (1993) and Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.īefore the court is Defendant, Anthony Allen's ("Allen's") "Motion in Limine" filed *858 on Maseeking to exclude certain expert opinions relating to footwear impression evidence anticipated to be elicited at trial by a government witness based upon the principles set forth in Daubert v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |