Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

Constitutional Law

: Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

KingCast sits in amazement as NH AG Kelly Ayotte disrepects Trooper Cooper and tries to dodge requests on ballistics and fingerprints in Franconia.

By Christopher King

First off, Kelly knows how to do fingerprint analysis you better believe it. Check out State v. Connor, 937 A.2d 928 (Dec. 14 2007), and even though the NH Supreme Court reversed the conviction in that case it's still obvious that the State knows how to conduct fingerprint analysis, including latent prints.

Fingerprints were lifted from the jar and sent to the state forensic lab for analysis. The two additional fires occurred at 291 Manchester Street and 459 Beech Street.

At trial, Timothy Jackson, a criminalist at the state lab who was [*2] qualified as an expert in latent fingerprint analysis, testified to his identification of the fingerprints found on the pickle jar. According to his testimony, the latent fingerprint methodology utilized by the state lab follows a four-step procedure known as "ACE-V" -- analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification.

Who was the defense counsel? Well none other than James T. Brooks, who has prevailed on the Fox Hill Park Unconstitutional arrests, read his Motions and McKay's losing Memoranda right here, brought to you in KingCast vision. I've spoken with Attorney Brooks before, now it's time for another call to him.

Now let's go right here to the Trooper Cooper interview of 3-time felon Gregory W. Floyd in which he says:

C: OK and i, and I guess the reason I ask that is um, later our crime scene people are going to be taking those weapons
F: Yah

C: And I guess what, my question is, is what state is it gonna be in now and how did it get in that state?

But now the State wants to avoid these very issues as countenanced in this Discovery Request and in RSA 91-A requests. Read the email exchange with Deer-in-the-headlights opposing counsel Kennedy in the comments section. What's up with THAT? What's the natural inference? Something to hide. That is clearly public information. Here's what LEOs said, and here's Bruce McKay OC Spraying Sarah, replete with sexual overtones like the knife-near-labia episode.

I'll file for Sanctions against the AG based on Washington v. Police Dep't, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11717 (Stateside claim for fingerprint analysis is lawful), Foster v. Exec. Office for United States Attys., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30889 (got her fingerprint analysis as sought) and more, after I ease into work and check my Lexis.

And as if on cue: Milford NH District Judge Martha Crocker just slammed Milford police for trying to hide public documents:

"Criminal matters are open to the public," Crocker wrote, "and the state bears the very high burden of convincing the court that the state's interest in sealing this file far out weighs the public's right to know. The state has failed to meet that burden."

I'm going to NOW with this. There's no love lost between them and Kelly you bet. See Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on February 04, 2008 (boomark / email).