ARE 92954 PETITLONER(S\ ENTITLLEA TO REAAAND, INILTH
INSTRUCTIONS FOR AISTRICT COURT TQ ORDER CASE
ATSMISSED AITTH PREAUDICERECAUSE OF PROSEC.UTIPS
ONLY EVIAENCE WAS A LATEMT?FINGER. PRINT LIFT THAT
JURY CONFUSED AS A LATEAIT FINGER PREAIT ROTH OF
INHECH BELOMGED TA PETITIONER |

TS A LATENT FINGER PRINT LIFT AND A LATENT FIAICER
PRENT,.ONE IN THE Same?

TS A LATENT FINGER PRINT, LIFTEN ofr SURFACE,
EVINENCE OF A RAND ANN LARCENY!

Whether petitioner is entitled to a remand with instructions for the district court to order the case dismissed with prejudice because the prosecution's only evidence was a latent fingerprint lift that the jury confused as a latent fingerprint of the petitioner