PEOPLE VS.
JENNINGS (1911)
On September 19, 1910, a burglary and murder occurred at the home of Clarence Hiller in Chicago,
Illinois. Thomas Jennings was later arrested and charged with murder based on fingerprint evidence
found at the crime scene.
KEY FACTS:
- Clarence Hiller was shot and killed while confronting an intruder in his home.
Jennings was arrested later the same night, found carrying a revolver and wearing bloodstained
clothing. Investigators found 4 fingerprint impressions on a freshly painted railing at the crime
scene. Experts later testified that Jennings' fingerprints matched those found on the railing at
the crime scene. The prosecution presented fingerprint evidence, arguing that the prints proved
Jennings was at the scene. This was the first time fingerprint evidence was used in an American
criminal trial to secure a conviction. The defense challenged the scientific reliability of
fingerprint analysis. The court found Jennings guilty and sentenced him to death. Jennings
appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court
Jennings appealed, arguing that fingerprint evidence was not a proven science and should not
have been admitted.
COURT RULING:
The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that fingerprint evidence was reliable
and admissible in court. marking the first time fingerprint evidence was used for a conviction in
the United States.
ISSUE:
The main legal issue in People vs. Jennings was whether fingerprint evidence was admissible in court as
a method of identifying a suspect. At the time, fingerprint analysis was a relatively new forensic
technique, and its reliability had not yet been widely accepted by U.S. courts.
PEOPLE VS CARACATH & PARACHIQUE ( 1ST CONVICTON IN CANADA)
KEY FACTS:
- In 1914, Peter Caracath and Gregory Parachique unlawfully entered the Canadian Pacific
Railway (CPR) Station in Petawawa.
- During the investigation, authorities discovered fingerprints on a glass surface at the point of
entry.
- Edward Foster, a constable with the Dominion Police in Ottawa, provided expert analysis. He
matched the fingerprints found at the scene to those of Caracath and Parachique.
- The case of People vs. Caracath and Parachique holds historical significance as the first instance
in Canada where fingerprint evidence led to a conviction
- The successful use of fingerprint identification in this case paved the way for its widespread
acceptance of fingerprint examination in Canadian courts.
- LAMBLE V. STATE
KEY FACTS:
Harold V. Lamble, alias George Brandon, was convicted of murder in the first
degree, and he brings error. Affirmed
A burglary occurred, during which fingerprints were discovered on the door of an automobile at
the crime scene.
Photographs of the fingerprints were taken, as the door itself was not presented in court.
The defense challenged the admissibility of the fingerprint photographs, arguing that the
original physical evidence (the door) was not produced.
The court ruled that the photographs of the fingerprints were admissible as evidence, even
without the physical production of the door. This decision reinforced the acceptance of
fingerprint evidence in criminal proceedings, setting a precedent for future cases.
STATE VS CONNERS
PEOPLE VS. CORRAL
Mack Tarango Corral charged of Two counts of first-degree burglary
Kreider Burglary (April 17, 1963)
Mrs. Kreider left her purse on the kitchen drainboard before going to bed. The next morning,
her purse was ransacked, and its contents were found on the windowsill.
Evidence: Two barefoot prints were found on the washer under the kitchen window, which
were later identified as Corral’s.
Weinberg Burglary (April 28, 1963)
Mrs. Weinberg woke up and saw a man standing near her bed.
The intruder fled when she called out to her husband. Her purse, left in the bedroom, was found
open, and about $90 was missing.
Evidence: A fingerprint on the purse clasp was identified as Corral’s
Corral was convicted on both counts.
The court reduced Count 2 (Kreider burglary) to second-degree burglary..
On appeal, Corral challenged:
The sufficiency of the evidence
The admissibility of fingerprint evidence
Alleged misconduct by the district attorney
Court Ruling: The conviction was upheld, with the court affirming that fingerprint evidence
was properly admitted and sufficient to support the verdict.
SCHMERBER VS. CALIFORNIA
Armando Schmerber was arrested for drunk driving (DUI) after being involved in a car accident in
California. While Schmerber was hospitalized for injuries from the accident, a police officer ordered a
doctor to take a blood sample from him without his consent and without a warrant.
The blood test confirmed intoxication and was used as evidence to convict him of DUI.
Schmerber argued that the warrantless blood draw violated his:
Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
Fifth Amendment (protection against self-incrimination)
Sixth Amendment (right to legal counsel)
The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of California, upholding Schmerber’s conviction. The blood draw was
considered a reasonable search due to exigent circumstances (the natural dissipation of alcohol
in the bloodstream). Since the officer had probable cause and a warrant wasn’t feasible, the
blood test was justified.
Established that blood tests for DUI suspects do not require a warrant under exigent circumstances
BINGALAWA VS AMADOR
The case of Bilangawa vs. Amador (Court of Appeals No. 37320-B) is a notable legal decision in the
Philippines concerning the admissibility and reliability of fingerprint evidence in criminal proceedings.
The defendant challenged the credibility and authenticity of fingerprint evidence presented against him,
arguing that such evidence was insufficient for conviction and that fingerprints could be identical among
different individuals.
Sergeant Amador, a police officer and fingerprint expert, testified during the trial. He identified eight
distinct ridge points matching the defendant's fingerprints to those found at the crime scene.
The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, ruling that the fingerprint evidence was both credible and
reliable. The court emphasized that the identification of eight identical ridge points was sufficient to
establish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt
PP VS MEDINA (59 PHIL.330)
Marciano Medina (also known as Mariano Medina and Alejandro Dola) robbed the inhabited house of
James C. Rockwell in Pasay on February 12, 1932 and stole One gold "Howard" watch valued at P200 and
one "Green" wristwatch with a leather strap valued at P120, totaling P320
The defendant unlawfully entered the residence of James C. Rockwell by tearing the wire screen
of a window, an opening not intended for entrance.
Once inside, Medina stole the aforementioned watches.
A silver box, taken from Mrs. Rockwell's room, was found the next morning in the garden.
A fingerprint on the box was identified as Medina's.
Medina was charged with robbery in an inhabited house and was found guilty. The defense
contested the admissibility of the fingerprint evidence, arguing that the fingerprint on the box
was not clearly visible and that the identification was unreliable.
The Court upheld the conviction, ruling that fingerprint evidence is admissible for the purpose
of establishing identity. The Court noted that while the fingerprint impression on the box was
somewhat blurred, it did not significantly hinder the comparison with Medina's known
fingerprints.
