As noted in yesterday’s post, Federal Rule of Evidence 414(a), In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant. So,…
Slate has a piece, The Catch-22 of Eyewitness ID, Juries trust the memory of witnesses even when they shouldn’t. h/t How Appealing.
I’ve posted already about the Oregon case – Oregon v. Lawson. Here is a piece from the excellent Concurring Opinions blog about eyewitness testimony. I would like to underscore Brandon’s point about reform efforts that are currently underway. While for the most part, the criminal justice process is stuck in…
Prof. Berman notes a unique “stale” murder/rape case in Illinois. Speaking of the Supreme Court, two recent rulings by the Justices, Gall and Pepper, made much of considering under federal sentencing law the positive post-offense behavior by a defendant. In this case, it seems the defendant was a model citizen…
I have mentioned this article before, Michael D. Risinger, Navigating Expert Reliability: Are Criminal Standards of Certainty Being Left in the Dock?, 64 ALBANY L. REV. 99 (2000). The basic theme: This article shows that, as to proffers of asserted expert testimony, civil defendants win their Daubert reliability challenges to…
Many years ago we sought to improve our counsel performance at NLSO Norfolk with developing checklists, protocols, and a PQS system. It seemed to work. Now here is an article, Darryl K. Brown, Defense Counsel, Trial Judges, and Evidence Protocols, Brown, Darryl K., Defense Counsel, Trial Judges, and Evidence Protocols,…
Federal evidence review brings us information about a proposed change to Fed. R. Evid. 803(10), which by operation of Mil. R. Evid. 1102, will become “law” for courts-martial absent Presidential action (18 months after the effective date of any FRE amendment). This is an occasional issue in fraud and some…
Here is a link to a useful site all about DNA. And here is a link to the NIJ forensics site.
The Supreme Court of Oregon has revisited its 30-year old rule that allowed for admission of eyewitness identification resulting from “unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures.” State v. Lawson consolidates two cases on the same issue, and decides en banc to recognize significant changes in the understanding and science of eyewitness…
Here is an interesting case from the Tenth, about cross-examination of a witness about a prior judicial “finding” that the witness was not credible — United States v. Woodard. The court states this basic principle from its own jurisprudence: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a defendant to “be…