No. 18-6954
Steven Scott Wells v. California
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: confrontation-clause criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-standards expert-testimony fingerprint-analysis fingerprint-evidence forensic-evidence judicial-review scientific-methodology
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does a fingerprint expert's testimony that two fingerprints 'match' have any evidentiary value if the expert provides no explanation for that conclusion and admits that there is 'no way' that anyone else can review the evidentiary basis for the conclusion?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Does a fingerprint expert’s testimony that two fingerprints “match” have any evidentiary value if the expert provides no explanation for that conclusion and admits that there is “no way” that anyone else can review the evidentiary basis for the conclusion? 1
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-03
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2018-11-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 7, 2019)
Attorneys
State of California
Julie Louise Garland — Office of the Atty General, Respondent
Julie Louise Garland — Office of the Atty General, Respondent
Steven Scott Wells
Alex Nicholas Coolman — The Law Office of Alex Coolman, Petitioner
Alex Nicholas Coolman — The Law Office of Alex Coolman, Petitioner