USA v. Reid

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD
Gordon Reid
SEALED ORDER
Gordon Reid is charged with one count of robbery under the
Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. His first trial ended in a mistrial
when the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. In
anticipation of a new trial, Reid moves ex parte pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) for services from three expert witnesses to
address certain evidence that he expects the government to
introduce at the second trial. Reid has been determined to be
indigent.
Reid requests expert services for footwear impression
identification, forensic meteorology, and for fingerprint
identification. To be entitled to authorization to employ
experts under the Criminal Justice Act, Reid must convince the
court that the requested expert services are necessary for an
adequate representation. § 3006A(e)(1); United States v.
Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 218 (1st Cir. 1996). “Generally, expert
services have been found necessary when the proffered expert
testimony was pivotal to the indigent defendant’s defense.” Id.
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 6

2
Reid is charged with robbing the Hess Gas Station and
Convenience Store on North Main Street in Concord, New Hampshire,
on February 13, 2005. The clerk of the store, Renee King,
testified that Reid took cash from the cash register and a six-
pack of Budweiser beer. A customer at the store at the time of
the robbery, David Broadbent, identified Reid as the only other
customer in the store. Deborah Poirier testified that Reid drove
her car, with her as a passenger, from Manchester where they had
been smoking crack cocaine, to Concord, intending to rob a
convenience store to get money to buy more crack cocaine.
At Reid’s first trial, police officers testified that a six-
pack of Budweiser beer was found not far from the Hess Station,
that footprints in the snow were found in the area, and that
currency was found near Reid when he was apprehended. The police
took photographs of and made impressions from the footprints
found near the scene of the robbery. Reid acknowledged that the
knit hat, boots, and leather coat the government produced at
trial belonged to him.
Timothy Jackson of the New Hampshire State Police Forensic
Laboratory testified about the footwear impressions and
identified Reid’s boots as the footwear that made the prints in
the snow near the scene of the robbery. The government also
called Lisa Corson, a criminalist who works with fingerprint
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 6

3
evidence at the New Hampshire State police Forensic Laboratory.
Corson testified that she examined fingerprint lifts from the
crime scene and did not find any matches to Reid. She also
testified about the nature of fingerprint evidence.
A. Footwear Impression Expert
Reid asks the court to approve services by a forensic shoe
impression identification analyst, Bodziak Forensics, to
initially review the government’s evidence and the reports,
photographs, and methodologies used by Jackson on behalf of the
government. Reid states that if appropriate, he will call an
employee from Bodziak Forensics to testify as an expert at trial.
In support of his request, Reid provides background and expert
qualification information about William Bodziak, who founded
Bodziak Forensics, and states that his hourly fee would be
$200.00. Reid further represents that Bodziak estimated a total
of $4,000.00 in fees if he or one of his associates provided the
requested services, including testifying at trial.
Reid contends that these services are necessary because the
government relied heavily on Jackson’s testimony that the
footprints near the Hess Station were made by Reid’s boots. The
court agrees that Reid is entitled to expert services under §
3006A(e)(1) for footwear impression analysis.
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 6

4
B. Forensic Meteorologist
At trial, the government introduced photographs that
witnesses testified were taken on the night of the robbery. It
was undisputed that it had snowed during the day of the robbery.
While some of the photographs showed fresh snow, others did not.
Reid requests the services of Kevin Williams or Joshua Nichols,
who are employed by Weather-Track, Inc., in Penfield, New York,
to review the photographs and the weather records for the day of
the robbery both to assist in educating Reid for cross
examination of the government’s witnesses and to provide an
opinion as to whether the photographs are consistent with the
weather on that day. Reid provides Kevin Williams’s credentials
and advises that Williams would charge $125.00 per hour, other
than for testimony at trial, that would total $750.00. He
charges an additional undisclosed fee for testimony at trial.
Reid argues that the services of Williams or his associate,
Nichols, are necessary to address expected government evidence
about the differences in the photographs with respect to snow.
The court authorizes Reid to obtain the services of Williams or
Nichols as he proposes.
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 4 of 6

5
C. Fingerprint Expert
Reid requests authorization to employ a fingerprint
identification analyst to first review the government’s
fingerprint evidence and, if appropriate, to testify at trial
about his opinions. Reid seeks the services of Ivan Futrell, who
previously worked with the FBI and is certified in latent
fingerprint examination. Futrell estimated that his services
would cost approximately $2500.00.
At the first trial, the government presented evidence, as
noted above, that Reid’s fingerprints were not found at the Hess
Gas Station. Reid anticipates that the government will downplay
that lack of evidence. Reid does not explain specifically,
however, in what way Futrell’s expected expert assistance is
necessary for his defense.
Given the testimony at the first trial, it is undisputed
that Reid’s fingerprints were not identified among latent
fingerprints taken from the Hess Station. In this case,
fingerprint evidence is not “the primary means of connecting the
defendant to the crime” nor does it provide any evidence of
Reid’s connection to the robbery. Manning, 79 F.3d at 218.
Instead, it appears that Reid hopes to use Futrell to show that
he is not connected to the robbery because his fingerprints were
not found at the scene. He has not provided any basis for such a
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 5 of 6

6
theory, however, much less a basis for concluding that those
services would be “pivotal” to the defense. Id. Therefore,
Reid’s motion for authorization of a fingerprint expert is
denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s ex parte motions
for services, a footwear impression expert and a meteorologist,
(documents no. 178 and 179) are granted. The defendant’s motion
for a fingerprint expert (document no. 180) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 13, 2006
cc: Gordon Reid, pro se
Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 188 Filed 03/13/06 Page 6 of 6