Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers was violated because his fingerprint and palm print cards were admitted into evidence through the testimony of a print examiner, rather than through the testimony of the detective who took the prints. However, since the defendant did not object to the admission of the print cards on this ground, his claim that his right of confrontation was
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
