Symmetry, Adversarialism, Scholarly Convention, and Latent Print Identification: A Reply to Merlino and Springer
Simon A. Cole · bepress Legal Repository · 2009
Some[body] says Thank you for saying all the things I never do I say the thanks I get is to take all the shit for you It's nice that you listen It'd be nicer ifyoujoined in As long as you play their game [] You're never going to win -Ani DiFranco, Face Up and Sing' I am deeply appreciative of the apology offered by Merlino and Springer for the way in which parts of an article by Merlino et al., Meeting the Challenges of the Daubert Trilogy: Refining and Redefining the Reliability of Forensic Evidence (Meeting), 2 "could . . .be interpreted as a personal attack on [my] expertise, although it was not intended as such." 3 At issue is the conclusion of Meeting, which discusses expert testimony I gave in a pre-trial hearing in a criminal case, People v. Hyatt, 4 in 2001.In my response, Don't Shoot the Messenger by One of the Messengers: A Response to Merlino et al. (Don 't Shoot), 5 I interpreted Meeting as arguing that purported deficiencies in my testimony somehow "explained" both the overwhelming tendency of trial courts to admit latent print individualization evidence, despite the opinions of many