Birks v. Clemente Javier Aguirre-Jarquin

1. Whether a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deprivation of liberty without due process of law, founded on an allegation that a latent print analyst caused plaintiff’s murder conviction and subsequent imprisonment when the analyst erroneously testified to a match of the plaintiff’s palm print to a latent print on the murder weapon, is foreclosed by plaintiff’s own testimony during the same criminal trial that he picked up and removed the weapon from the murder scene? 2. Whether the submission of latent print evidence in a criminal prosecution and trial, which later is determined to have been inaccurate, is a due process violation where the latent print analyst was not subjectively aware at the time she testified to it that her opinion evidence was inaccurate? 3. Whether, for qualified immunity purposes, it was clearly established in the 2004-2006 timeframe that the unknowing and unintentional submission of inaccurate latent print evidence was a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment? 4. Whether the law was clearly established by 2006 that a latent print analyst, who is required to have a positive print match verified by a another credentialed analyst, deprived a criminal defendant of due process by asking a fellow credentialed analyst working alongside her in the same lab to verify her positive identification, where she harbored subjective concerns about the competence of her colleague due to his age and infirmity? 5. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying a latent print analyst qualified immunity on an entirely novel form of §1983 due process liability founded solely upon the analyst’s negative personal opinions as to the competence of her more experienced and equally credentialed co-worker print analyst, whom she asked to verify her positive print identification?