USA v. Reid

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 05-cr-57-JD
Gordon Reid
SEALED ORDER
Gordon Reid filed an ex parte sealed motion requesting funds
to pay for a forensic fingerprint analyst who would “review the
discovery reports and photographs . . . and the Government’s
analysis or lack thereof, of the latent fingerprint evidence and
items which could have or should have been examined for latent
fingerprint evidence.” The court denied the motion because Reid
had not explained how the fingerprint analyst’s evidence was
necessary for his defense. Reid now moves for reconsideration of
that order, based on a new theory that he contends he did not
have time to pursue initially because of the time constraints
imposed by the court’s scheduling order.
For purposes of reconsideration, Reid asserts that he
intends to use the services of the fingerprint analyst to conduct
“fingerprint comparison of the latent fingerprint impressions
lifted off of the six-pack of Budweiser found in the area of the
Merrimack County Attorney’s Office Building, and those of several
officers involved in the so-called ‘investigation’ of this case.”
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 250 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 3

2
Reid contends that such evidence will be used to attack the
integrity of the investigation and prosecution of this case, in
particular, to bolster his defense that the government is biased
and prejudiced against him and has fabricated or mishandled
evidence. Specifically, Reid argues that the fingerprint analyst
will help him show that “(1) the photographs of the six pack of
Budweiser were posed, (2) that evidence has been fabricated,
and/or (3) that evidence has been mishandled.”
Even if this newly-minted theory had been timely presented,
it would have been unavailing. As the court has previously
explained to Reid, in order to obtain payment for services under
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1), he must convince the court that the
requested services are necessary for an adequate representation.
United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 218 (1st Cir. 1996). A
fingerprint expert is necessary only if fingerprint evidence is
likely to be pivotal in the case, such as when that evidence
provides “the primary means of connecting the defendant to the
crime.” Id.; see also United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88,
118, (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. Walborn, 730 F.2d 192, 194
(5th Cir. 1984). At a minimum, a defendant must have a plausible
defense that requires expert services, otherwise the government
could be forced to finance a “fishing expedition.” United States
v. King, 356 F.3d 774, 778 (7th Cir. 2004).
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 250 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 3

3
Reid’s request falls into the category of a fishing
expedition with little or no justifiable basis. The beer is not
the only means of connecting him to the scene of the crime and is
far from a pivotal piece of evidence in the case. More
importantly, whether or not the police officers’ fingerprints are
found on the beer will prove little or nothing because it is
undisputed that the police found the beer and handled it.
Therefore, Reid has not shown, on reconsideration, that the
court erred in denying his request for the services of a forensic
fingerprint analyst.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for
reconsideration (document no. 248) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 7, 2006
cc: Gordon Reid, pro se
Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 250 Filed 04/07/06 Page 3 of 3