Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al
DECLARATION signed by Thomas Martin re 214 Memorandum in Support, 213 MOTION for Sanctions Notice of Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Facebook Contract by Defendants filed by Paul D. Ceglia. (Boland, Dean)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
Civil Action No. : 1:10-cv-00569-RJA
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG, Individually, and
Thomas Martin, submits this declaration and hereby declares under penalty
of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and under the laws of the United States
that the following is true and correct:
I make this declaration upon personal knowledge and experience.
I have been a latent fingerprint examiner for more than 20 years with the New
York State Police, and continuing through the present date as a forensic
consultant now in private practice.
I have been qualified as an expert in latent fingerprint identification and have
given expert testimony in latent print identification numerous times in many
I have never been denied expert qualification by any court.
I have handled thousands of fingerprint cases during my career.
In addition to being a qualified latent fingerprint examiner, I was assigned as
the supervisor of the New York State Police Forensic Identification Unit/
Fingerprint Unit for 14 years of my career reviewing the work of all
subordinates during that time.
As the supervisor in charge of the latent print unit and processing lab which
was audited annually, I was responsible for ensuring conformance to protocols
and procedures for evidence handling. This included proper handling of
evidence and the documentation related to evidence.
During my career with the New York State Police, and continuing today in my
private practice, I have instructed courses, and continue to instruct courses
nationwide, involving proper crime scene processing and evidence handling
protocols and procedures; to include protocols specific to the recovery of latent
During my career I have on numerous occasions processed items of evidence
including paper to determine if those items contained latent fingerprints
deemed usable for identification purposes.
10. I know from my training and experience that fingerprints can be obtained from
paper that is several years old including the approximate age of the paper
involved in this matter which I understand to be more than eight years old.
11. The age of a substance like paper, by itself, is not an impediment to recovering
12. The Excessive and improper handling of paper documents even with a gloved
hand can make otherwise usable and recoverable fingerprints unrecoverable.
13. Touching a piece of paper with a bare hand, can cause new latent fingerprint
impressions to be placed onto that piece of paper.
14. If a questioned document contains latent prints, and before that document is
properly processed or examined for latent prints; a subsequent person handles
the questioned document without gloves, it is possible for that subsequent
person to leave additional fingerprints on top of the existing latent prints
making it difficult or impossible to recover the underlying latent prints.
15. Latent print evidence by its very definition, is potentially probative evidence
that is normally invisible to the naked eye before the application of chemicals
or powders which would allow those latent prints to be viewed and
16. As such, any potentially probative evidence, such as latent print evidence, that
will be examined in a forensic laboratory must be handled using standard
evidence handling protocols.
17. Standard protocols include at a minimum; handling the potential evidence
with protective gloves, and handling the potential evidence with as minimal
contact as possible even with gloved hands.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and
under the laws of the United States that the following is true and correct:
DATED: November 10, 2011.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?