This document summarizes strategies for litigating cases involving flawed forensic science at various stages of criminal proceedings. It discusses using the Daubert standard to challenge questionable forensic evidence pre-trial, exploring issues with specific forensic disciplines through discovery requests, and arguing that post-conviction changes in scientific understanding regarding certain forensic fields constitute "newly discovered evidence" warranting a new trial. The document also provides examples of cases where new scientific developments have led courts to vacate convictions or order new trials.
Making Mitigation Work at Every Stage of the CaseAdam Tebrugge
What does mitigation mean? Keep the different audiences in mind. This presentation reviews communication strategies for mitigating evidence at every stage of the capital case.
Impeaching With Prior Inconsistent StatementsMelissa Gomez
The document discusses the findings of a study on how jurors perceive witnesses who provide inconsistent testimony. Some key findings include:
1. Most jurors (72%) expect witnesses to be as honest as possible, though certain demographics like younger jurors are more skeptical.
2. When confronted with inconsistencies, 60% of jurors believe the witness is lying rather than making an honest mistake.
3. Younger jurors and those who are employed are more likely to think the witness is purposely lying, while older jurors are more likely to believe it is an honest mistake.
Types of evidence and observations presentationMaria Donohue
Types of Evidence
There are two main types of evidence: testimonial evidence and physical evidence. Testimonial evidence includes eyewitness testimony and statements. Physical evidence refers to tangible items found at a crime scene, on victims, or in a suspect's possession. Physical evidence is often more reliable than eyewitness accounts, which can be affected by factors like memory errors, suggestive questioning, and biases. Both types of evidence must be carefully collected and analyzed to determine facts about a crime.
This document summarizes the changing role of expert witnesses in court. It discusses how expert witnesses are traditionally expected to say whatever can reasonably support the client's position, rather than provide objective assistance. Courts have taken a more aggressive role in screening out "junk" testimony. One reform is the "gatekeeper" role of judges to exclude dubious expertise, based on criteria like testing and peer review. However, studies show judges rarely discuss these criteria and more often exclude evidence based on relevance or witness qualifications. There is a clash between the legal system's need for settled conclusions and experts' view that some issues have no settled answer. Through screening and cross-examination, the legal process does not always succeed at exposing problematic expert testimony that could lead
The study examined how the attitude of a jury foreman influences individual jurors' decisions. 33 mock jurors viewed a trial and deliberated under a confederate foreman with either a positive, negative, or neutral attitude towards the defendant. Jurors were more likely to vote not guilty after deliberations if the foreman had a positive attitude, and more likely to vote guilty if the foreman had a negative attitude. A neutral foreman led jurors to not change their vote or vote undecided. The foreman was seen as most persuasive when exhibiting a biased attitude.
This document provides an overview of trial procedures and strategies for a negligence case in New York state courts. It begins with a summary of the pretrial conference process, where the parties and judge work to simplify issues, obtain admissions, consider amendments and evidence limitations. The document emphasizes the importance of thorough preparation, including factual investigation and witness preparation. It also stresses developing a clear theory of the case and themes to present the facts in the most favorable light. Finally, it discusses strategies for winning the pretrial conference, including asserting control of discussions, emphasizing case strengths while acknowledging weaknesses, and knowing settlement limits.
This memorandum analyzes whether Simon Oakland's Sixth Amendment rights were violated in his criminal trial. It summarizes that Oakland's counsel, John Mitchum, was ineffective under the Strickland test for failing to challenge the legal basis of the charges against Oakland, making questionable decisions during jury selection and witness examination, and falling asleep during trial. It also argues that Oakland did not properly assert his right to self-representation under the Faretta test because the court did not warn him of the risks of proceeding without counsel and his statements seemed to stem from frustration, not a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel.
Making Mitigation Work at Every Stage of the CaseAdam Tebrugge
What does mitigation mean? Keep the different audiences in mind. This presentation reviews communication strategies for mitigating evidence at every stage of the capital case.
Impeaching With Prior Inconsistent StatementsMelissa Gomez
The document discusses the findings of a study on how jurors perceive witnesses who provide inconsistent testimony. Some key findings include:
1. Most jurors (72%) expect witnesses to be as honest as possible, though certain demographics like younger jurors are more skeptical.
2. When confronted with inconsistencies, 60% of jurors believe the witness is lying rather than making an honest mistake.
3. Younger jurors and those who are employed are more likely to think the witness is purposely lying, while older jurors are more likely to believe it is an honest mistake.
Types of evidence and observations presentationMaria Donohue
Types of Evidence
There are two main types of evidence: testimonial evidence and physical evidence. Testimonial evidence includes eyewitness testimony and statements. Physical evidence refers to tangible items found at a crime scene, on victims, or in a suspect's possession. Physical evidence is often more reliable than eyewitness accounts, which can be affected by factors like memory errors, suggestive questioning, and biases. Both types of evidence must be carefully collected and analyzed to determine facts about a crime.
This document summarizes the changing role of expert witnesses in court. It discusses how expert witnesses are traditionally expected to say whatever can reasonably support the client's position, rather than provide objective assistance. Courts have taken a more aggressive role in screening out "junk" testimony. One reform is the "gatekeeper" role of judges to exclude dubious expertise, based on criteria like testing and peer review. However, studies show judges rarely discuss these criteria and more often exclude evidence based on relevance or witness qualifications. There is a clash between the legal system's need for settled conclusions and experts' view that some issues have no settled answer. Through screening and cross-examination, the legal process does not always succeed at exposing problematic expert testimony that could lead
The study examined how the attitude of a jury foreman influences individual jurors' decisions. 33 mock jurors viewed a trial and deliberated under a confederate foreman with either a positive, negative, or neutral attitude towards the defendant. Jurors were more likely to vote not guilty after deliberations if the foreman had a positive attitude, and more likely to vote guilty if the foreman had a negative attitude. A neutral foreman led jurors to not change their vote or vote undecided. The foreman was seen as most persuasive when exhibiting a biased attitude.
This document provides an overview of trial procedures and strategies for a negligence case in New York state courts. It begins with a summary of the pretrial conference process, where the parties and judge work to simplify issues, obtain admissions, consider amendments and evidence limitations. The document emphasizes the importance of thorough preparation, including factual investigation and witness preparation. It also stresses developing a clear theory of the case and themes to present the facts in the most favorable light. Finally, it discusses strategies for winning the pretrial conference, including asserting control of discussions, emphasizing case strengths while acknowledging weaknesses, and knowing settlement limits.
This memorandum analyzes whether Simon Oakland's Sixth Amendment rights were violated in his criminal trial. It summarizes that Oakland's counsel, John Mitchum, was ineffective under the Strickland test for failing to challenge the legal basis of the charges against Oakland, making questionable decisions during jury selection and witness examination, and falling asleep during trial. It also argues that Oakland did not properly assert his right to self-representation under the Faretta test because the court did not warn him of the risks of proceeding without counsel and his statements seemed to stem from frustration, not a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel.
This chapter discusses crime scene investigation and evidence collection. It introduces Locard's exchange principle which states that physical evidence is exchanged between a perpetrator and victim/crime scene. It outlines the goals and team members involved in a crime scene investigation. The key steps are securing the scene, separating witnesses, scanning/documenting the scene, searching for evidence, and collecting/packaging evidence maintaining chain of custody. DNA, fingerprints, trace evidence, and other physical/biological evidence can be analyzed to reconstruct the crime.
This chapter discusses crime scene investigation and evidence collection. It outlines Locard's exchange principle which states that physical evidence is exchanged between a perpetrator and victim during a crime. It describes the roles of crime scene investigators and different types of evidence like direct, circumstantial, trace, and DNA evidence. It explains the proper procedures for securing a crime scene, collecting, packaging, and documenting the chain of custody of evidence to preserve its integrity for court.
The document discusses different types of evidence used in legal cases, including testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses and physical evidence found at crime scenes. It notes that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable due to factors like stress, biases, and memory errors over time. Physical evidence is considered more reliable and can include trace evidence like fibers, fingerprints, DNA, tool marks, firearms evidence, and more. The document emphasizes how physical evidence can be analyzed and compared to help determine its origin and link it to people or places associated with a crime.
This document discusses different types of evidence that can be used in criminal cases. It summarizes the two main types of evidence as testimonial evidence, which includes witness statements, and physical evidence, which refers to tangible items found at a crime scene. It then provides more details on various sub-categories of physical evidence such as trace evidence, transient evidence, and class evidence. The document also mentions Locard's exchange principle which states that contact between items will result in an exchange of trace evidence.
This document discusses different types of evidence used in forensic science, including testimonial, physical, and eyewitness evidence. It describes factors that affect eyewitness testimony and methods for identifying suspects. It also classifies physical evidence as transient, pattern, or conditional and provides examples. Finally, it discusses classifying evidence by nature or type, and the major activities involved in forensic investigations.
This document discusses the history and evolution of standards for the admissibility of expert testimony in U.S. courts. It begins with the 1923 Frye case, which established that expert testimony must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Subsequent cases, including Daubert (1993) and Kumho (1999) refined and expanded the standards, establishing a framework for judges to assess relevance and reliability. Current rules focus on whether the testimony is based on sufficient facts/data and reliable principles/methods.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
4pm - 5:30 pm
Is the witness telling the truth, lying, or just confused? It has been said that "there is only one reliable guide to credibility, and that is that there are no reliable guides to credibility." This workshop will examine some of the myths about credibility determination in arbitration, and discuss tools that arbitrators use to help decide if a witness is credible.
The document provides an overview of crime scene processing, including key principles like Locard's exchange principle and the importance of properly collecting, documenting, and preserving evidence. It discusses establishing boundaries, photographing and diagramming the scene, collecting physical and trace evidence, and maintaining chain of custody for any evidence. Careful and thorough processing following standard protocols is emphasized to avoid compromising potential evidence.
This document discusses the concept of "blind juries" where jurors are prevented from seeing the defendant in order to reduce racial bias. Currently, minorities are disproportionately incarcerated, especially for nonviolent drug offenses. Blind juries could help address this by removing the ability of jurors to form unconscious biases based on the defendant's appearance. However, others argue blind juries may make it too easy to convict if jurors are removed from the defendant personally and cannot assess remorse. Potential solutions proposed include allowing written or altered voice testimony from defendants to still connect with jurors, or using blind juries only for nonviolent offenses.
The document discusses the importance of civic education and mock trials. It notes that many Americans cannot name basic parts of the government. Mock trials are recommended as they make law come alive and engage students through roles and higher-order thinking. Benefits include connections to different learning styles and grades. Elements of theatre, plot analysis, and character development are described to aid in preparing mock trials. Resources for teachers are provided.
Research on the reasons behind wrongful convictions in the United States as well as recommendations for decreasing the number of wrongful convictions that occur annually
An investigator's job is to determine key details of a crime including who the perpetrator and victim are, what happened and when, and how the crime occurred. They collect and analyze evidence from the crime scene such as fingerprints, DNA, footprints and insect activity to help establish things like the time of death and a potential suspect's height and movements. The investigator works methodically, carefully documenting and collecting all evidence before questioning witnesses and suspects to solve the crime.
This document summarizes key details regarding Brendan Dassey's confession in the Netflix documentary "Making a Murderer". It discusses how Dassey's confession was initially ruled admissible but later overturned by federal courts as coerced and involuntary. The document then outlines the questioning Dassey underwent over multiple unrecorded and recorded interviews. Finally, it emphasizes the importance of conducting truthful interviews rather than aiming solely for confessions, assessing risks for vulnerable interviewees, and questioning interrogation processes used rather than just outcomes.
This document discusses different types of evidence used in law, including direct evidence like witness testimony, and physical evidence like tangible objects collected from crime scenes. It explains that evidence can prove a crime was committed, corroborate statements, and help reconstruct events. Both direct and circumstantial evidence can establish facts, but circumstantial evidence implies events rather than directly proving them. The credibility of expert witnesses and admissibility of evidence is determined based on standards like Frye and Daubert.
Strengthening Forensic Science A Way Station On The Way To Justicealisonegypt
1) The document discusses the need to strengthen forensic science through ongoing validation research to determine which practices are scientifically valid and the limits of their validity.
2) It proposes a series of "validation investigations" be conducted by a respected body like the National Academy of Sciences to determine if certain forensic techniques and theories have already been scientifically validated or not.
3) The validation investigations would examine all prior studies to determine if a technique has been validated, has not been validated, or has been found invalid. This would provide clarity on forensic practices and could reveal issues requiring re-examination of past convictions.
Photos is Apple's photo app that works across Macintosh, iOS, and iCloud. It replaces iPhoto and allows users to import, organize, edit, and share their photos across platforms. While similar to iPhoto in functionality, Photos removes some features like rating stars and iPhoto events. It introduces new sharing options and editing extensions from third parties. The document provides an outline and demonstration of Photos' capabilities for importing, organizing, editing, and publishing photos on Mac and iOS devices.
The document discusses analyzing and reducing errors in DNA computing algorithms. It focuses on a sensitivity analysis of Gloor's algorithm for the shortest common superstring problem. Key steps include encoding input strings, generating all possible solutions, and iteratively matching strings. The analysis finds that encoding and extraction steps are most sensitive to errors. Various techniques are proposed to make the algorithm more error-resistant, such as carefully designing the encoding to avoid mismatches, and using multiplexing to tolerate a certain number of erroneous operations. The goal is to tune the algorithm and underlying biological operations to be robust against real-world error rates in DNA computing.
DNA evidence has helped exonerate over 200 people in California who were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes like murder and rape since 1989, with 6 people wrongfully sentenced to death row being freed. While DNA testing helps solve some wrongful conviction cases, it does not address the broader issues that can lead to wrongful convictions in the first place.
Wrongful convictions can occur due to errors in the criminal justice system. The top causes of wrongful convictions are eyewitness misidentification, unreliable forensic evidence, false confessions, and untrustworthy informant testimony. In the 1970s and 1980s, the development of DNA testing revealed that innocent people had been wrongly convicted. This led to the formation of innocence projects and reforms to reduce errors. Exonerations have increased in recent years as more resources are devoted to investigating wrongful conviction claims.
The document discusses several issues related to the use of expert scientific evidence in legal cases. It notes that science has become more complex, witnesses remain fallible, and courts and lawyers often lack the tools and skills to properly evaluate scientific evidence. There is a debate around "junk science" and whether tighter standards are needed for admitting scientific evidence in trials. The document also discusses examples of complex scientific evidence used in cases, such as DNA analysis, and social science research on topics like battered woman syndrome and eyewitness identification. It raises concerns about the overvaluation of expert scientific opinions and accuracy problems in some forensic techniques.
On the meaning of the likelihood ratio: is a large number always an indicati...hindahaned
This document discusses evaluating DNA evidence using likelihood ratios (LR). It examines a case involving two suspects (S1, S2) and a victim. While initially evaluating S1, S2, and the victim under the prosecution hypothesis gave a high LR, replacing each suspect with random individuals showed the LR was not robust. The document recommends simplifying propositions by evaluating suspects separately. It also describes calculating exact p-values and evaluating related individuals under the defense hypothesis. The key lessons are to simplify complex propositions, evaluate suspects individually, and consider related individuals to properly interpret DNA evidence using LRs.
Disertación sobre el caso mediático de O. J. SimpsonTavusFox
O.J. Simpson nació en 1947 en San Francisco. Fue una estrella del fútbol americano universitario y ganó el premio Heisman en 1968. Se casó dos veces y tuvo cinco hijos. El 12 de junio de 1994, su ex esposa Nicole Brown y su amigo Ronald Goldman fueron encontrados muertos. La policía encontró evidencia de sangre en la casa y el auto de Simpson. En 1995 comenzó un juicio muy publicitado que terminó con su absolución.
This chapter discusses crime scene investigation and evidence collection. It introduces Locard's exchange principle which states that physical evidence is exchanged between a perpetrator and victim/crime scene. It outlines the goals and team members involved in a crime scene investigation. The key steps are securing the scene, separating witnesses, scanning/documenting the scene, searching for evidence, and collecting/packaging evidence maintaining chain of custody. DNA, fingerprints, trace evidence, and other physical/biological evidence can be analyzed to reconstruct the crime.
This chapter discusses crime scene investigation and evidence collection. It outlines Locard's exchange principle which states that physical evidence is exchanged between a perpetrator and victim during a crime. It describes the roles of crime scene investigators and different types of evidence like direct, circumstantial, trace, and DNA evidence. It explains the proper procedures for securing a crime scene, collecting, packaging, and documenting the chain of custody of evidence to preserve its integrity for court.
The document discusses different types of evidence used in legal cases, including testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses and physical evidence found at crime scenes. It notes that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable due to factors like stress, biases, and memory errors over time. Physical evidence is considered more reliable and can include trace evidence like fibers, fingerprints, DNA, tool marks, firearms evidence, and more. The document emphasizes how physical evidence can be analyzed and compared to help determine its origin and link it to people or places associated with a crime.
This document discusses different types of evidence that can be used in criminal cases. It summarizes the two main types of evidence as testimonial evidence, which includes witness statements, and physical evidence, which refers to tangible items found at a crime scene. It then provides more details on various sub-categories of physical evidence such as trace evidence, transient evidence, and class evidence. The document also mentions Locard's exchange principle which states that contact between items will result in an exchange of trace evidence.
This document discusses different types of evidence used in forensic science, including testimonial, physical, and eyewitness evidence. It describes factors that affect eyewitness testimony and methods for identifying suspects. It also classifies physical evidence as transient, pattern, or conditional and provides examples. Finally, it discusses classifying evidence by nature or type, and the major activities involved in forensic investigations.
This document discusses the history and evolution of standards for the admissibility of expert testimony in U.S. courts. It begins with the 1923 Frye case, which established that expert testimony must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Subsequent cases, including Daubert (1993) and Kumho (1999) refined and expanded the standards, establishing a framework for judges to assess relevance and reliability. Current rules focus on whether the testimony is based on sufficient facts/data and reliable principles/methods.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
4pm - 5:30 pm
Is the witness telling the truth, lying, or just confused? It has been said that "there is only one reliable guide to credibility, and that is that there are no reliable guides to credibility." This workshop will examine some of the myths about credibility determination in arbitration, and discuss tools that arbitrators use to help decide if a witness is credible.
The document provides an overview of crime scene processing, including key principles like Locard's exchange principle and the importance of properly collecting, documenting, and preserving evidence. It discusses establishing boundaries, photographing and diagramming the scene, collecting physical and trace evidence, and maintaining chain of custody for any evidence. Careful and thorough processing following standard protocols is emphasized to avoid compromising potential evidence.
This document discusses the concept of "blind juries" where jurors are prevented from seeing the defendant in order to reduce racial bias. Currently, minorities are disproportionately incarcerated, especially for nonviolent drug offenses. Blind juries could help address this by removing the ability of jurors to form unconscious biases based on the defendant's appearance. However, others argue blind juries may make it too easy to convict if jurors are removed from the defendant personally and cannot assess remorse. Potential solutions proposed include allowing written or altered voice testimony from defendants to still connect with jurors, or using blind juries only for nonviolent offenses.
The document discusses the importance of civic education and mock trials. It notes that many Americans cannot name basic parts of the government. Mock trials are recommended as they make law come alive and engage students through roles and higher-order thinking. Benefits include connections to different learning styles and grades. Elements of theatre, plot analysis, and character development are described to aid in preparing mock trials. Resources for teachers are provided.
Research on the reasons behind wrongful convictions in the United States as well as recommendations for decreasing the number of wrongful convictions that occur annually
An investigator's job is to determine key details of a crime including who the perpetrator and victim are, what happened and when, and how the crime occurred. They collect and analyze evidence from the crime scene such as fingerprints, DNA, footprints and insect activity to help establish things like the time of death and a potential suspect's height and movements. The investigator works methodically, carefully documenting and collecting all evidence before questioning witnesses and suspects to solve the crime.
This document summarizes key details regarding Brendan Dassey's confession in the Netflix documentary "Making a Murderer". It discusses how Dassey's confession was initially ruled admissible but later overturned by federal courts as coerced and involuntary. The document then outlines the questioning Dassey underwent over multiple unrecorded and recorded interviews. Finally, it emphasizes the importance of conducting truthful interviews rather than aiming solely for confessions, assessing risks for vulnerable interviewees, and questioning interrogation processes used rather than just outcomes.
This document discusses different types of evidence used in law, including direct evidence like witness testimony, and physical evidence like tangible objects collected from crime scenes. It explains that evidence can prove a crime was committed, corroborate statements, and help reconstruct events. Both direct and circumstantial evidence can establish facts, but circumstantial evidence implies events rather than directly proving them. The credibility of expert witnesses and admissibility of evidence is determined based on standards like Frye and Daubert.
Strengthening Forensic Science A Way Station On The Way To Justicealisonegypt
1) The document discusses the need to strengthen forensic science through ongoing validation research to determine which practices are scientifically valid and the limits of their validity.
2) It proposes a series of "validation investigations" be conducted by a respected body like the National Academy of Sciences to determine if certain forensic techniques and theories have already been scientifically validated or not.
3) The validation investigations would examine all prior studies to determine if a technique has been validated, has not been validated, or has been found invalid. This would provide clarity on forensic practices and could reveal issues requiring re-examination of past convictions.
Photos is Apple's photo app that works across Macintosh, iOS, and iCloud. It replaces iPhoto and allows users to import, organize, edit, and share their photos across platforms. While similar to iPhoto in functionality, Photos removes some features like rating stars and iPhoto events. It introduces new sharing options and editing extensions from third parties. The document provides an outline and demonstration of Photos' capabilities for importing, organizing, editing, and publishing photos on Mac and iOS devices.
The document discusses analyzing and reducing errors in DNA computing algorithms. It focuses on a sensitivity analysis of Gloor's algorithm for the shortest common superstring problem. Key steps include encoding input strings, generating all possible solutions, and iteratively matching strings. The analysis finds that encoding and extraction steps are most sensitive to errors. Various techniques are proposed to make the algorithm more error-resistant, such as carefully designing the encoding to avoid mismatches, and using multiplexing to tolerate a certain number of erroneous operations. The goal is to tune the algorithm and underlying biological operations to be robust against real-world error rates in DNA computing.
DNA evidence has helped exonerate over 200 people in California who were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes like murder and rape since 1989, with 6 people wrongfully sentenced to death row being freed. While DNA testing helps solve some wrongful conviction cases, it does not address the broader issues that can lead to wrongful convictions in the first place.
Wrongful convictions can occur due to errors in the criminal justice system. The top causes of wrongful convictions are eyewitness misidentification, unreliable forensic evidence, false confessions, and untrustworthy informant testimony. In the 1970s and 1980s, the development of DNA testing revealed that innocent people had been wrongly convicted. This led to the formation of innocence projects and reforms to reduce errors. Exonerations have increased in recent years as more resources are devoted to investigating wrongful conviction claims.
The document discusses several issues related to the use of expert scientific evidence in legal cases. It notes that science has become more complex, witnesses remain fallible, and courts and lawyers often lack the tools and skills to properly evaluate scientific evidence. There is a debate around "junk science" and whether tighter standards are needed for admitting scientific evidence in trials. The document also discusses examples of complex scientific evidence used in cases, such as DNA analysis, and social science research on topics like battered woman syndrome and eyewitness identification. It raises concerns about the overvaluation of expert scientific opinions and accuracy problems in some forensic techniques.
On the meaning of the likelihood ratio: is a large number always an indicati...hindahaned
This document discusses evaluating DNA evidence using likelihood ratios (LR). It examines a case involving two suspects (S1, S2) and a victim. While initially evaluating S1, S2, and the victim under the prosecution hypothesis gave a high LR, replacing each suspect with random individuals showed the LR was not robust. The document recommends simplifying propositions by evaluating suspects separately. It also describes calculating exact p-values and evaluating related individuals under the defense hypothesis. The key lessons are to simplify complex propositions, evaluate suspects individually, and consider related individuals to properly interpret DNA evidence using LRs.
Disertación sobre el caso mediático de O. J. SimpsonTavusFox
O.J. Simpson nació en 1947 en San Francisco. Fue una estrella del fútbol americano universitario y ganó el premio Heisman en 1968. Se casó dos veces y tuvo cinco hijos. El 12 de junio de 1994, su ex esposa Nicole Brown y su amigo Ronald Goldman fueron encontrados muertos. La policía encontró evidencia de sangre en la casa y el auto de Simpson. En 1995 comenzó un juicio muy publicitado que terminó con su absolución.
A miscarriage of justice refers to the conviction and punishment of an innocent person for a crime they did not commit. Causes of miscarriages of justice include coerced guilty pleas, biased investigations, fabricated evidence, and prejudiced courts. Forensic science involves the study and analysis of physical evidence from crime scenes, such as DNA, fingerprints, and trace evidence, to help solve crimes and prevent future injustices.
The document discusses several factors that can contribute to wrongful convictions in criminal justice systems, including human errors, systemic biases, pressure from the media and public, flaws in the adversarial system, tunnel vision in investigations, unreliable eyewitness identifications and interrogations, issues with expert witnesses and informants, prosecutorial misconduct, and inadequate defense counsel. It also notes that wrongful convictions harm not just the convicted person but also the original victims and their families as well as the wider community. Appellate remedies on their own are often limited in addressing wrongful convictions.
Este documento resume el caso criminal de O.J. Simpson, quien fue acusado pero encontrado no culpable del asesinato de su ex esposa Nicole Brown y Ronald Goldman en 1994. A pesar de abundantes pruebas, como guantes ensangrentados y ADN, Simpson fue absuelto gracias a la defensa de su costoso "Dream Team". El caso dividió a EE.UU. por líneas raciales y planteó preguntas sobre la parcialidad del sistema de justicia.
Ethically Litigating Forensic Science Cases: Daubert, Dna and BeyondAdam Tebrugge
What are the shared responsibilities of the analyst, prosecutor ,defense attorney and judge when dealing with forensic science cases? This lecture also covers DNA evidence and focuses on discovery and litigation issues.
D. Mayo: The Science Wars and the Statistics Wars: scientism, popular statist...jemille6
I will explore the extent to which concerns about ‘scientism’– an unwarranted obeisance to scientific over other methods of inquiry – are intertwined with issues in the foundations of the statistical data analyses on which (social, behavioral, medical and physical) science increasingly depends. The rise of big data, machine learning, and high-powered computer programs have extended statistical methods and modeling across the landscape of science, law and evidence-based policy, but this has been accompanied by enormous hand wringing as to the reliability, replicability, and valid use of statistics. Legitimate criticisms of scientism often stem from insufficiently self-critical uses of statistical methodology, broadly construed — i.e., from what might be called “statisticism”-- particularly when those methods are applied to matters of controversy.
Mayo: 2nd half “Frequentist Statistics as a Theory of Inductive Inference” (S...jemille6
This document summarizes issues related to data-dependent selections and hypothesis testing. It discusses how preliminary inspection of data can influence test statistics and null hypotheses, potentially altering a test's ability to reliably detect discrepancies from the null. Two examples are provided:
1) "Hunting" through multiple independent tests and only reporting the most statistically significant result can incorrectly estimate the actual error rate as being much higher than the nominal rate of 5%.
2) Searching a DNA database and declaring a match with the first individual is different, as each non-match strengthens evidence for the inferred match. Adjusting is not needed as in the statistical "hunting" case.
Selection of cut-offs or model
Laminas Exposicion Final Daniel Rojas Teatredo Criminalisticadanielrojas1909
Este documento resume el caso criminal de O.J. Simpson, quien fue acusado de asesinar a su ex esposa Nicole Brown Simpson y a su amigo Ronald Goldman en 1994. Describe la escena del crimen, incluyendo las evidencias encontradas como guantes con sangre que coincidían con Simpson. A pesar de las pruebas de ADN que lo vinculaban, Simpson fue absuelto en el juicio penal debido a problemas con la manipulación de evidencias y la composición racial del jurado. Más tarde fue declarado culpable en un juicio civil.
The document discusses using DNA evidence to verify an ancestry tree containing 1130 people that the author has been researching for 4 years. The author received over 1200 DNA matches from AncestryDNA but the matches were overwhelming to analyze. To make sense of the data, the author created a paper chart mapping the DNA evidence. The chart revealed an absence of matches to the paternal grandfather's side, suggesting non-paternity in the ancestral line. The author plans to test relatives and cousins to identify non-paternity events and better understand the DNA matches. More advanced tools are needed from Ancestry to fully analyze the large amount of DNA data.
Tras el desvanecimiento del orden surgido de la Segunda Guerra mundial, y de los poderes que de ella emergieron, hoy nuevos actores emergen, en los que democracia liberal es cuestionada por otros tipos de organización política.
Thank you for the presentation. DNA evidence exchange across borders can help solve crimes, but ensuring proper data protection and human rights is crucial to build trust between countries.
This document discusses strategies for cross-examining expert witnesses. It emphasizes the importance of thorough preparation, including investigating the expert's credentials and potential biases, learning the relevant terminology, retaining one's own expert, and using things like demonstrative aids and learned treatises. The document provides examples of effective cross-examinations from cases and outlines ten principles for preparing to cross-examine an expert witness.
2 of 107 DOCUMENTSWILLIAM DAUBERT, ET UX., ETC., ET AL., P.docxeugeniadean34240
2 of 107 DOCUMENTS
WILLIAM DAUBERT, ET UX., ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS V. MERRELL
DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
No. 92-102
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
509 U.S. 579; 113 S. Ct. 2786; 125 L. Ed. 2d 469; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4408; 61 U.S.L.W.
4805; 27 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1200; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P13,494; 93 Cal. Daily Op.
Service 4825; 93 Daily Journal DAR 8148; 23 ELR 20979; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S
632
March 30, 1993, Argued
June 28, 1993, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT.
DISPOSITION: 951 F.2d 1128, vacated and remanded.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners appealed an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for respondent drug company. Petitioners
challenged the finding that its experts' opinions were inadmissible as unreliable where opinions were based on
recalculations of study data and such recalculations had not been subjected to peer review or published.
OVERVIEW: The summary judgment was reversed where expert opinions were admissible to show respondent's drug
caused birth defects despite the fact that the experts' analysis had not been published or subject to peer review.
Petitioners were children with serious birth defects. Their parents alleged that the mothers' ingestion of respondent's
drug caused defects. Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment, supported by proof that the drug did not
cause defects. Petitioners responded with expert opinions that the drug did cause defects. The opinions were based on a
reanalysis of previously published studies stating the drug did not cause defects. The trial court granted respondent's
motion, holding petitioners' scientific evidence was inadmissible because the reanalyzed studies were not reliable where
they had not been published. Petitioners appealed. The Court vacated and remanded, holding that a technique upon
which an expert opinion was based did not have to be generally accepted as reliable as a precondition to the opinion's
admission as long as the standards of reliability and relevance under the federal evidence rules were met.
OUTCOME: The Court vacated and reversed the appellate court's affirmance of a judgment granting respondent
summary judgment. Where petitioners' expert evidence was reliable under federal rules, the evidence was admissible.
The common law standard for determining reliability of scientific evidence was inapplicable where federal evidence
rules superceded the common law. Publication or peer review of the experts' recalculation was thus unnecessary.
Page 1
CORE TERMS: scientific, expert testimony, general acceptance, admissibility, scientific evidence, reliability, birth
defects, methodology, Federal Rules, admissible, trier of fact, reliable, rules of evidence, peer review, scientific
community, subjected, expert opinion, amici, common law, summary judgment, specialized knowledge,.
This document summarizes the changing role of expert witnesses in court. It discusses how expert witnesses are traditionally expected to say whatever can reasonably support the client's position, rather than provide objective assistance. Courts have begun taking a more aggressive role in screening out "junk" testimony. One reform is the "gatekeeper" role of judges to exclude dubious expertise, based on criteria like testing and peer review. However, studies show judges rarely discuss these criteria and more often simply rule evidence is irrelevant or unhelpful. There is a clash between the legal system's need for clear conclusions and experts' views that reliability exists on a continuum, not as binary categories. Through cross-examination, junk science is sometimes detected, but high-profile wrong
This document discusses causation issues in mass tort claims involving product testing. It outlines the Daubert and Frye standards for the admissibility of expert testimony on causation. Experts must use reliable methodologies, like epidemiological studies, that are generally accepted in the scientific community to establish general causation between a product and disease. Case reports alone are not sufficient. The document also discusses how experts evaluate causation using criteria like Bradford Hill and considers challenges in proving causation when multifactorial diseases are involved.
The document discusses the scientific and legal history of shaken baby syndrome. It describes the medical theory behind shaken baby syndrome - that violently shaking an infant can cause subdural hematomas and retinal hemorrhages leading to death. It notes the debate between experts who support the theory and those who are critical of it. The author argues that this is a genuine battle between qualified experts on both sides, and that expert testimony from both sides should be admitted in court cases involving shaken baby syndrome."
The document discusses the scientific and legal history of shaken baby syndrome. It describes the medical theory behind shaken baby syndrome - that violently shaking an infant can cause subdural hematomas and retinal hemorrhages leading to death. It notes the debate between experts who support the theory and those who are critical of it. The author argues that this is a genuine battle between qualified experts on both sides, and that expert testimony from both sides should be admitted in court under the Daubert and Kumho standards for expert testimony."
This document summarizes a legal research paper about the debate surrounding shaken baby syndrome evidence in criminal cases. It provides a brief history of shaken baby syndrome and outlines the research supporting the theory as well as criticisms of that research. The author concludes that there is a genuine scientific debate on this issue, and both sides have presented methodologically sound research that would qualify their expert testimony as admissible in court under the relevant rules of evidence."
This document summarizes a legal research paper about the debate surrounding shaken baby syndrome evidence in criminal cases. It describes the scientific and legal history of shaken baby syndrome and reviews the empirical research on both sides of the debate. The author concludes that there is a genuine scientific dispute between the experts, and both sides have conducted methodologically sound research that would qualify their testimony as admissible in court under the applicable rules of evidence."
Ready to become a land surveying expert witness? This seminar/workshop is designed to familiarize the practicing surveyor with the unique requirements placed on being used as an expert in litigation. Not all surveyors should qualify as experts. The instruction will discuss what differentiates experts from the “garden variety” surveyor and will offer suggestions on how to be.
This document discusses the issue of science in courts and how juries are often ill-prepared to evaluate complex scientific evidence. It summarizes the evolution of standards for admitting scientific evidence from the Frye rule which required general acceptance by the scientific community to the Daubert rule which established four tests of adequacy. Case studies on facilitated communication, automobile accidents, and cerebral palsy are presented to show how juries have sometimes ruled against scientific evidence. The document calls for better training of judges and juries to critically evaluate science and ensure only valid scientific evidence is admitted.
This document discusses the potential effects that crime drama TV shows like CSI have on real-world criminal investigations and court cases. It defines the "CSI effect" as jurors having unrealistic expectations about the type and amount of forensic evidence that should be available. The document discusses how police, attorneys, forensic labs, and jurors may be affected, noting trends like jurors demanding more DNA evidence than is realistic. While CSI shows increase interest in forensics careers, they also portray an inaccurate picture of how long evidence examination takes and what technology and resources actual crime labs have.
Challenges to the Admissibility of Evidence in the ‘Omics’ Era RonaldJLevine
Product Liability Law & Strategy: Challenges to the Admissibility of Evidence in the ‘Omics’ Era, Law Journal Newsletter’s Product Liability Law & Strategy
This document discusses the use of "junk science" in child abuse cases and motions to challenge unreliable scientific evidence. It summarizes the history of the Frye test, which established that scientific evidence must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community to be admitted. It outlines the Daubert ruling, which shifted the focus to reliability and placed responsibility on judges to independently assess scientific evidence. The document analyzes how Daubert and subsequent rulings changed the standards for admitting expert testimony and established reliability as the key criterion over general acceptance alone.
Iii Eighth Circleof Fire Law Review On Sbsalisonegypt
This document discusses the use of "junk science" in child abuse cases and motions to challenge unreliable scientific evidence. It summarizes the history of the Frye test, which established the standard that scientific evidence must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community to be admitted. It outlines key Supreme Court cases like Daubert that have shifted the focus to reliability over general acceptance alone. The document argues judges now have a responsibility to independently assess scientific reliability and ensure expert testimony is based on sound science.
On the General Acceptanceof Eyewitness Testimony Research.docxvannagoforth
On the "General Acceptance"
of Eyewitness Testimony Research
A New Survey of the Experts
Saul M. Kassin
V. Anne Tubb and Harmon M. Hosch
Amina Memon
Williams College
University of Texas at El Paso
University of Aberdeen
In light of recent advances, this study updated a prior
survey of eyewitness experts (S. M. Kassin, P. C. Ellsworth,
& V. L. Smith, 1989). Sixty-four psychologists were asked
about their courtroom experiences and opinions on 30
eyewitness phenomena. By an agreement rate of at least
80%, there was a strong consensus that the following
phenomena are sufficiently reliable to present in court: the
wording of questions, lineup instructions, confidence mal-
leability, mug-shot-induced bias, postevent information,
child witness suggestibility, attitudes and expectations,
hypnotic suggestibility, alcoholic intoxication, the cross-
race bias, weapon focus, the accuracy-confidence corre-
lation, the forgetting curve, exposure time, presentation
format, and unconscious transference. Results also indi-
cate that these experts set high standards before agreeing
to testify. Despite limitations, these results should help to
shape expert testimony so that it more accurately repre-
sents opinions in the scientific community.
I n recent years, and with increasing frequency, psychol-ogists have served as expert witnesses in trials thatcontain possible erroneous eyewitness identifications.
To assess the extent to which there is "general acceptance"
of various eyewitness phenomena within the scientific
community (a criterion for the admissibility of scientific
evidence, initially enunciated in Frye v. United States,
1923), Kassin, Ellsworth, and Smith (1989) surveyed 63
eyewitness experts for their views on the reliability of 19
propositions. Their survey revealed that whereas certain
research findings were judged to be reliable by most ex-
perts (e.g., the effects of exposure time, lineup instructions,
the wording of questions, preevent expectations, postevent
information, and the accuracy-confidence correlation),
others did not elicit high levels of consensus (e.g., the
effects of stress, event violence, gender, weapon focus,
hypnotic retrieval techniques, and training in eyewitness
observation).
By providing empirical evidence of the consensus
within the community of experts, this survey has proved
useful to judges ruling on the admissibility of expert wit-
nesses; psychologists needing to determine the appropriate
contents of their testimony; and cross-examiners seeking to
discredit experts who overstate, understate, or in other
ways misrepresent the literature. In light of the kinds of
substantive disputes likely to erupt in the courtroom
(Leippe, 1995; Penrod, Fulero, & Cutler, 1995), the net
effect, it was hoped, was to encourage expert testimony that
more accurately reflects the consensus of opinions within
the scientific community.
The time has come for Kassin et al.'s (1989) survey of
experts to be updated. Since its publication ...
Reisberg Chapter 6—The Acquisition of Memories.docxaudeleypearl
Reisberg:
Chapter
6—The
Acquisition
of
Memories
and
the
Working-‐‑Memory
System
• What
is
acquisition?
• What
is
storage?
• What
is
retrieval?
• Describe
the
information
processing
view
of
memory,
and
the
components
of
the
Modal
Model
of
Memory.
• Describe
the
Serial
Position
curve.
Define
the
primacy
effect
and
recency
effect?
Why
do
we
see
the
primacy
effect
and
recency
effect
(also
demonstrated
in
one
of
the
Workbook
assignments
this
week)?
• What
is
the
function
of
working
memory?
What
is
the
capacity
of
working
memory?
• Discuss
the
working
memory
system
(the
central
executive,
visuo-‐‑spatial
buffer,
and
articulatory
rehearsal
loop).
• Compare/Contrast
maintenance
rehearsal
and
elaborative
rehearsal.
• Describe
Depth
(or
Levels)
of
Processing.
• Why
do
mnemonics
improve
memory?
Reisberg:
Chapter
7—Interconnections
Between
Acquisition
and
Retrieval
(Pages
223-‐‑252)
• What
is
context-‐‑dependent
learning?
• Why
does
reinstating
the
context
improve
memory?
• Define
encoding
specificity
(also
demonstrated
in
one
of
the
Workbook
assignments
this
week).
• Describe
a
basic
memory
network
(nodes,
links,
and
spreading
activation).
According
to
this
account
of
memory:
(1)
why
are
retrieval
cues
helpful?
(2)
Why
does
reinstating
the
context
improve
memory?,
and
(3)
How
does
semantic
priming
work?
• Distinguish
between
explicit
and
implicit
memory.
• Describe
the
two
types
of
explicit
memory
and
the
four
types
of
implicit
memory
outlined
in
Figure
7.13
Reisberg:
Chapter
8—Remembering
Complex
Events
• What
is
an
intrusion
error?
• Describe
the
DRM
procedure.
Why
does
this
procedure
lead
to
false
memories
(demonstrated
in
the
ZAPS
this
week)?
• What
is
a
schema?
How
can
relying
on
a
schema
produce
a
false
memory?
• What
is
the
impact
of
using
leading
questions
(Loftus
and
Palmer,
1974)?
• Is
confidence
a
good
indicator
of
accuracy?
Why
or
why
not?
• Describe
the
following
causes
of
forgetting:
(1)
decay,
(2)
interference
theory,
and
(3)
retrieva ...
1. The document discusses issues around privacy and consent related to genomic and medical data sharing. It describes different types of privacy and controversies over sharing the HeLa cell genome without consent.
2. Broad consent for unspecified future uses of data limits informed consent. New models of dynamic and tiered consent that allow individuals more control are discussed.
3. Laws and court cases around privacy and property rights for human tissue are reviewed, including the Moore v. Regents case ruling that discarded bodily tissue is not private property.
The document discusses who qualifies as a computer forensics expert. It defines computer forensics as the identification, preservation, extraction, interpretation and presentation of computer-related evidence. A computer forensics expert is a person with specialized skills and knowledge in this field, gained through training and experience. The document outlines standards from court cases like Daubert that determine what qualifications and methods are required for an expert's testimony to be considered admissible and reliable in court.
EMPHNET-PHE Course: Module seven(part2)-research integrity and publication et...Dr Ghaiath Hussein
This document discusses ethical issues in public health research, including definitions of scientific misconduct, types of misconduct, and infamous cases. It defines scientific misconduct as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or intentional deception in research. Types of misconduct include fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and redundant publication. Notable cases include Diederik Stapel fabricating data in dozens of papers, Hwang Woo-suk falsifying human cloning research, and Andrew Wakefield fraudulently linking vaccines to autism. The document examines why misconduct occurs and how it should be managed.
Demystifying Advanced Technologies to Find Solutions that WorkEmily Mermell
A Corporate Counsel headline from late last year asked, “Can Predictive Coding Save The World?” A better, albeit more modest question is, can it save you money? This panel addresses that loaded question and the related issues of:
• Deploying advanced technologies across enterprise data,
• Measuring the effectiveness of advanced technologies,
• Vetting and selecting appropriate service providers, and
Validating the results of predictive coding.
In this panel, IT and legal experts survey the technology horizon, giving you insights and best practices for finding the solutions that work best for you.
Similar to Litigating Flawed Forensic Science at Every Stage (20)
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...RitikBhardwaj56
Discover the Simplified Electron and Muon Model: A New Wave-Based Approach to Understanding Particles delves into a groundbreaking theory that presents electrons and muons as rotating soliton waves within oscillating spacetime. Geared towards students, researchers, and science buffs, this book breaks down complex ideas into simple explanations. It covers topics such as electron waves, temporal dynamics, and the implications of this model on particle physics. With clear illustrations and easy-to-follow explanations, readers will gain a new outlook on the universe's fundamental nature.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
Physiology and chemistry of skin and pigmentation, hairs, scalp, lips and nail, Cleansing cream, Lotions, Face powders, Face packs, Lipsticks, Bath products, soaps and baby product,
Preparation and standardization of the following : Tonic, Bleaches, Dentifrices and Mouth washes & Tooth Pastes, Cosmetics for Nails.
Thinking of getting a dog? Be aware that breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds can be loyal and dangerous. Proper training and socialization are crucial to preventing aggressive behaviors. Ensure safety by understanding their needs and always supervising interactions. Stay safe, and enjoy your furry friends!
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docxadhitya5119
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
2. NACDL
• 4th Annual Post-Conviction Conference
• “Evolving Science and Faulty Forensics: Legal
Theories for Advancing Innocence Claims”
• Charlotte, N.C. April 18, 2013
3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• National Research Council of the National
Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in
the United States: A Path Forward 86 (2009)
• 8 STANFORD J. C.R. & C.L. ___ (forthcoming)
‘SHIFTED SCIENCE’ AND POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF BY: CAITLIN PLUMMER & IMRAN SYED
4. Bibliography continued
• SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME, ABUSIVE HEAD
TRAUMA, AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE: GETTING IT
RIGHT Keith A. Findley, Patrick D. Barnes, David A.
Moran, and Waney Squier* 12 Hous. J. Health L. &
Policy 209 (2012)
• A Daubert Analysis of Abusive Head Trauma/Shaken
Baby Syndrome:
Narang, Melville, Greeley, Anderst, Carpenter and
Spivac.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2
288126
6. Bibliography Continued
• JUDICIAL GATEKEEPING OF SUSPECT
EVIDENCE: DUE PROCESS AND EVIDENTIARY
RULES IN THE AGE OF INNOCENCE
• Keith A. Findley*
• GEORGIA LAW REVIEW Vol. 47:723
• April, 2013
7. RESOURCES
• National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology
and the Law http://www.ncstl.org
NCSTL provides a forensic research database;
newsletter, resource pages, bibliographies.
• National Institute of Justice: “Legal Guide for the
Forensic Expert.”
http://nij.gov/training/courses/law-101.htm
• http://www.daubertcounsel.com
8. RESOURCE LIST:
• Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert
• http://www.ncstl.org/education/Law%20101
•
• Digging up Dirt on Experts
• http://www.ncstl.org/education/Digging%20Up%20Dir
t%20for%20Experts
•
• Forensic Resources on the Web
• http://www.ncstl.org/education/Finding%20Forensic%
20%3CBR%3EResources%20on%20the%20Web
•
9. Problem for Juries and Defendants
• Lay jurors tend to give considerable weight to
“scientific” evidence when presented by
“experts” with impressive credentials. We have
acknowledged the existence of a misleading aura
of certainty which often envelops a new scientific
process, obscuring its currently experimental
nature... Scientific proof may in some instances
assume a posture of mystic infallibility in the eyes
of a jury…” People v. Kelly, 549 P.2d 1240 (CAL
1976)
10. FRYE v. DAUBERT
• FRYE: “General acceptance in relevant
scientific community”
• DAUBERT:
(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts
or data;
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods; and
(3) The witness has applied the principles and
methods reliably to the facts of the case.
11. What does DAUBERT require?
• (1) “*A+ key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or
technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it
can be (and has been) tested.” Daubert at 593.
• (2) “*W+hether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and
publication.... submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a
• component of ‘good science,’ in part because it increases the likelihood that
substantive flaws in methodology will be detected.” Id.
• (3) “*T+he court ordinarily should consider the known or potential rate of error...
and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s
operation....” Id. at 594.
• (4) “Finally, general acceptance can yet have a bearing on the inquiry. A reliability
assessment does not require, although it does permit, explicit identification of a
relevant scientific community and an express determination of a particular degree
of acceptance within that community.... Widespread acceptance can be an
important factor in ruling particular evidence admissible, and a known technique
which has been able to attract only minimal support within the community, may
properly be viewed with skepticism.”
12. DAUBERT APPLIED
• In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael the Court
explained the proper application of the rule in
Daubert. First the Court held that application
of the rule in Daubert is not limited only to
cases where an expert “relies on the
application of scientific principles”. The rule
also has application where an expert relies “on
skill- or experience-based observation.”
13. For the TRIAL Lawyer
• OBJECT if an opposing party seeks to introduce ANY
evidence which is testable under Frye (formerly) or
Daubert (now), or seeks to offer ANY expert
opinion, including “pure” opinion, on ANY subject. Cite
Ch. 2013-107 as the basis for the objection, and
request a Daubert hearing.
• Likewise if you intend to offer ANY opinion by an
expert on ANY subject, move before trial to admit the
opinion testimony, call the expert as a witness at the
motion hearing, and PROFFER THE EVIDENCE at the
motion hearing
• Look to Civil Cases for authority
14. Science v. Forensic Science
• “Science” = “Can we disprove this
hypothesis?” Data Driven; Verifiable
• “Forensic Science” = “Can we answer a
particular question?” Results
Driven, “experiential”
15. NAS REPORT (2009)
• WHAT MAKES GOOD SCIENCE?
• --SCIENTIFIC METHOD
• --RELIABLE –consistent, repeatable results
• --ERROR RATE—”measuring uncertainty”
• --VALIDATION- independently verified?
• CONCLUSION: Other than DNA, nearly all
forensic individualization sciences fail to
possess the most basic attributes of science.
16. DISCOVERY ISSUES
• use NAS as blueprint
• Ask for SOPs (testing and quality control)
validation studies.
• Ask for any scientific literature the expert bases
opinion upon.
• Any communications between analysts and
police.
• Any information on proficiency testing.
• Specific questions about procedures.
17. Use Daubert to Litigate Ake Claims
• Daubert requires gatekeeping by trial
court, therefore an adversarial process.
• Special responsibilities of counsel in a capital
case.
• Avoid “breakdown of the adversarial process.”
18. LITIGATION STRATEGIES
• Motions in limine to limit the language of the
expert. Semantics matter.
• Cross Examine on failure to follow scientific
method.
• Defense case:
-call expert on the scientific method
-Establish NAS Report as a learned treatise
Jury Instructions: “In assessing scientific
testimony, you should consider …
19. Systemic Forensic Science Problems
• Institutional bias—discipline wants to protect its
members
• Observer Bias, contextual bias, confirmation bias
• Mistaken interpretation
• Overstatement of interpretation (Exaggeration)
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
• Scientific knowledge changed rendering previous
opinions false.
20. Specific Problem Areas of Forensic
Science
• Arson-”The extreme susceptibility of the field of arson science to
wrongful convictions”
• Bitemark Evidence: “the poster child of unreliable forensic science."
The NAS found that the discipline is almost completely
incompatible with the most fundamental principles of science.
• Hair: A FBI review of more than 21,000 cases has revealed 27 death
penalty cases in which the FBI's forensic experts may have
exaggerated the scientific conclusions that could be drawn from
their testimony, mistakenly linking defendants to crimes they may
not have committed.
• “Shaken Baby Syndrome”-thousands of people were convicted or
pled guilty in the face of allegedly irrefutable “science” during the
dark ages of shaken baby science.
21. DNA-The Next Generation of Wrongful
Convictions?
• What Will They Look Like?
• Complex mixtures
• Degraded samples (Partial Profile
• DNA Database Hits)
• Touch DNA (Low Copy Number (Template) DNA)
• CODIS: There is no general acceptance by the
relevant scientific community as to an
appropriate methodology for assessing the
statistical significance of a cold hit DNA match.
22. What if “Science” Changes?
• What if Science is false or discredited?
• What if science now considered inconclusive?
• What if new scientific evidence appears to
exonerate the Defendant?
23. Is New Science “Newly Discovered
Evidence?”
• Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. 1991).
• “Thus, we hold that henceforth, in order to
provide relief, the newly discovered evidence
must be of such nature that it would probably
produce an acquittal on retrial. The same
standard would be applicable if the issue were
whether a life or a death sentence should have
been imposed. We note that this is the standard
currently employed by the federal courts.”
24. CASE LAW VICTORIES
• State v. Edmunds, 308 Wis. 2d 374 (Wis. App. 2008). “There is a
reasonable probability that a jury, looking at both the new medical
testimony and the old medical testimony, would have a reasonable
doubt as to Edmunds's guilt.” [vacating conviction based on the
shift in mainstream medical opinion concerning “shaken baby
syndrome,” even though “the new evidence does not completely
dispel the old evidence”
• Han Tak Lee v. Glunt, 10-4133, 2012 WL 247993 (3d Cir. Jan.
27, 2012) (in due process challenge to arson conviction, appellate
court remanded for an evidentiary hearing in the federal trial court
stating that even though the state courts denied relief, habeas relief
may be warranted if petitioner can show that “new developments
in fire science [prove] that the fire expert testimony at [his] trial was
fundamentally unreliable.”)
25. Another Victory
• Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Ex Parte Cathy Lynn
HENDERSON. 384 S.W.3d 833 (Dec. 5, 2012) Habeas
relief would be granted babysitter convicted of capital
murder of child, and case remanded for a new
trial, where medical examiner, who testified at trial
that babysitter's position that child's death resulted
from an accidental fall was false and
impossible, testified at evidentiary hearing in habeas
corpus proceeding that there was no way to determine
with a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether
victim's injuries resulted from an intentional act of
abuse or an accidental fall.
26. Bad Case-law Losses
• Robbins v. State, 360 S.W.3d 446 (Texas 2011)
Medical examiner reevaluates trial testimony
and changes opinion but this did not
“unequivocally establish the defendant’s
innocence.” Since the testimony was not
“false,” defendant did not have a due process
right to have a jury hear the new testimony.
27. What are the best claims to raise in
post-conviction?
• Daubert Challenge—Can we reevaluate the
admissibility of the forensic science evidence?
• Sufficiency of the Evidence-if there was
sufficient evidence to convict at trial, does
shifted science change that?
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel-how could
counsel be ineffective for not anticipating
future scientific developments?
28. Claims in Post-Conviction (continued)
• Brady violation? Does Brady extend to Post-conviction? No
says District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne. 129 S. Ct.
2308, 2320 (2009)
• Prosecutorial Misconduct? Prosecutorial misconduct can
come in several forms with regard to scientific testimony:
The first is intentional presentation of knowingly false
testimony. Misconduct might also occur if a prosecutor fails
to correct testimony she knows is false or on the failure to
correct an overstatement of an expert. Some courts have
found misconduct existed where the prosecution made no
effort to investigate evidence where there was great reason
to believe it was false
29. Additional Claims
• NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE CLAIM--
Argument: Shifted Science = Newly discovered
evidence.
• Due Process claim: Han Tak Lee – if fire evidence
fundamentally unreliable then the defendant is
entitled to federal habeas relief.
• 13th Amendment claim: People may not be
enslaved or held in involuntary servitude “except
as a punishment for crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
30. New Litigation Strategies
• Look at Civil cases on expert witnesses:
Patterson v. Tibbs, 60 So. 3d 742 (Miss. 2011)
Denham v. Holmes ex rel. Holmes, 60 So. 3d 773
(Miss. 2011)
Sherwin Williams Co. v. Gaines, 75 So.3d 41 (Miss.
2011)
Dedeaux Util. Co., Inc. v. Gulfport, 63 So. 3d 514
(Miss. 2011)
In each of these cases it was held that the expert
testimony was wrongly admitted.
31. CAUTION
• Unlike the extremely well-litigated civil challenges, the
criminal defendant’s challenge is usually perfunctory.
• “Regardless of the Daubert standard, without zealous
investigation and cross-examination of the proffered
expert evidence, many improper and even fraudulent
uses of scientific data are not exposed. “
• In not one of the half-dozen most sensational forensic-
science scandals of the last 20 years, involving serial
fraud and gross misconduct, were the transgressions of
‘experts’ revealed by defense counsel at trial.”
32. Will Texas Lead the Way?
• “In the last legislative session, in the wake of
dozens of exonerations in recent years based
on advances in forensic science, Texas
lawmakers approved Senate Bill 344. The first
law of its kind in the nation, it allows courts to
grant defendants new trials in cases in which
forensic science has evolved.”
New York Times September 10, 2013
33. Texas Inmate Facing Execution Is First
to Ask for Review Under New Law
Attorneys for Rigoberto Avila have requested an evidentiary hearing
under a new law passed in Texas that allows defendants to challenge
their convictions if they were gained through outdated forensic
techniques. His case will be the first death penalty case in the state to
be considered by the courts under this new legislation.
Avila, a Navy veteran, was convicted of murder in El Paso in 2001
for the tragic death of a 19-month-old infant. He is scheduled to be
executed on January 15, 2014. He has consistently maintained his
innocence and wants to introduce a biomechanical analysis of the
cause of death and the testimony of a forensic pathologist, tending to
show that the infant's death was an accident.
“Finality and certainty is important," said Cathryn Crawford, one of
Mr. Avila’s lawyers, "but we have to also have a criminal justice system
that is flexible enough to take into account when we have scientific
advancements and to allow people like Mr. Avila to have their day in
court.”
Editor's Notes
What can be done to cure the injustice of a conviction that was based on scientific testimony that may have been accepted in the relevant scientific community at the time of trial, but has since been completely repudiated?