U.S. v. Bonds

In prosecution on bank robbery charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s attempt to cross-examine govt. fingerprint expert, who stated that defendant’s prints were found on demand notes, with fact that same ACE-V method used by expert to identify defendant as culprit misidentified different defendant as culprit in 2004 case. Similar Confrontation Clause argument was rejected in Rivas, 831 F.3d 931, and fact that instant expert worked in same division that misidentified individual in 2004 case did not require different result. Ct. further noted that defendant had ample opportunity to supply jury with evidence about reliability of ACE-V method without going into 2004 case, and that certain changes in ACE-V method have bolstered its accuracy.