Experts Category Archives — Page 4 of 9 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog Published by International Military Lawyer

The Ayes have it

November 30, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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 identification.

The court discussed State v. Classen and its two-step five (nonexclusive) factors to consider whether an identification was “independent of suggestive procedures.” Classen had relied on Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), wherein the Supremes “determined that reliability was the linchpin in determinations regarding the admissibility of identification testimony.”

Confrontation and authenticating IP documents and reports in CP cases

November 15, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is an interesting case from the First, United States v. Cameron, decided 14 November 2012. The issue is confrontation and the admission of various internet provider records. I think this case helpful in litigating the paper that the prosecution seeks to use in CP cases.

We thus presume that Cameron’s challenge is to the following categories of evidence: (1) the Yahoo! Account Management Tool and Login Tracker data — this data was attached to the CP Reports and was also produced in response to search warrants; (2) electronic receipts of Yahoo’s CP Reports to NCMEC — these receipts were produced by Yahoo! in response to search warrants; (3) NCMEC’s CyberTipline Reports to ICAC; and (4) the Google Hello Connection Logs.

Bite mark evidence and testimony-defense resource

August 26, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Occasionally there is a case involving bite mark evidence and testimony. This type of testimony is subject to challenge under Houser. Here I am talking about a case where the bite mark testimony goes to prove the identity of the accused.

So, to that end the defense needs resources to challenge admissibility of the evidence under Houser and also to evaluate and challenge evidence if it is admitted by the military judge.

THE INNOCENCE PROJECT (IP) is a national litigation and public policy organization based in New York dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. As the DNA exonerations have revealed, the misapplication of forensic science has been a leading cause of wrongful convictions. The newly created Strategic Litigation unit is aimed at, among other things, eliminating junk science from courtrooms nationwide, beginning with bite mark comparison evidence. To that end, IP seeks to partner with an attorney(s) on criminal cases involving bite mark comparison. Attorneys with cases meeting the following criteria should contact IP directly.

Favorite topic-investigator bias

August 21, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Except in a slightly different context, but still a similar point.

Errin Morris, Cognitive Biasl and Evaluation of Forensic Evidence, The Champion, NACDL, May 2012.

Remember, USACIL and all the others get a full brief sheet on why the evidence should be tested and lots of facts. The subsequent testing is not done in the blind.

Wikipedia as a reliable source

August 19, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Well, I use Wikipedia for research. But, I use it “in some limited situations . . . for getting a sense of a term’s common usage." Fire Insurance Exchange v. Oltman & Blackner, Case No. 201004262-CA, 2012 UT App 230 (Utah App. 2012)(discussing the uses and reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information).

See e.g., United States v. Jones, ARMY 20090401 (A. Ct. Crim. App. December 14, 2011), Appellant was accused of effectively “Equating MOS trainees to permanent party – grandmothers to toads” The court cites to Wikipedia for the proposition that the expression “WIKIPEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges (a Serbian expression akin to the familiar "apples to oranges" idiom in English) (last visited Dec. 1, 2011); in United States v. Magalhaes, NMCCA 200602480 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. February 21, 2008), the court cites to Wikipedia for the definition of the Pythagorean Theorem; in United States v. Ober, ACCA again resorts to Wikipedia for discussion of Kazza one of the early “programs” used to exchange many things over the internet, but for our purposes CP (which was also done in State v. Ballard, 2012-NMCA-043, ¶ 19 n.1, 276 P.3d 976 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012)(citing Wikipedia to define "peer-to-peer file sharing").).

But the Fire Insurance Exchange court cites to these several cases and there is an interesting discussion of Wikipedia.

It was him, I’m sure

July 20, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Maybe not. There is quite a bit of research and anecdotal evidence to show that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Now New Jersey is in the frontline of making sure a jury is aware of the potential problems with eyewitness testimony. To quote the ABA Journal.

New jury instructions in New Jersey will warn that human memory is not foolproof and eyewitness testimony must be carefully scrutinized.

Set to take effect on Sept. 4, the new instructions follow a landmark ruling last year by the New Jersey Supreme Court that makes it easier for defendants to challenge the reliability of eyewitness identifications, the New York Times reports. The decision also required juries to be instructed on the variables that could lead to mistaken identifications.

More on shaken baby syndrome

July 8, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

SBS has been subject to significant criticism, so the “experts” have changed it’s name to Abusive Head Trauma. But does a name change mean that the “syndrome” or “diagnosis” is any more real?

Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence: Getting It Right

Keith A. Findley University of Wisconsin Law School

Urinalysis cases

September 14, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

In two days CAAF has granted two urinalysis cases citing to Melendez-Diaz. Note Blazier is still undecided. In the Air Force case the defense did not object, in the Navy case the defense did object.

No. 10-0668/AF. U.S. v. Jerrod D. NUTT. CCA S31600. Review granted on the following issues:

WHETHER, UNDER MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASACHUSETTS, 129 S.CT. 2527 (2009), THE ADMISSION OF THE DRUG TESTING REPORT VIOLATES APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

Humor in uniform lawyering

July 21, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

This report from Savannah.now questions why expert payments within the 3ID claimancy take so long.

The military judge also questioned why experts for the defense continue to have difficulties obtaining payments for work done on Bozicevich’s behalf as attorneys prepare for a February 2011 capital court-martial trial.

The humor is that this is neither a new problem nor a problem limited to the 3ID, or the Army for that matter.

Blood spatter expert

June 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

CAAF has decided United States v. Lloyd, in a 3-2 decision. The majority determined that the defense had not sufficiently shown the need for a blood spatter expert. Chief Judge Effron writing for himself and Judge Baker dissented. I see this as a fact based decision and not stating any new law.