About Jules M Epstein (hehimhis) Criminal case investigations often start with Locard’s “exchange principle” – “It is impossible for a criminal to act, especially considering the intensity of a crime, without leaving traces of this presence.” As otherwise described, “[t]his theory states that, whenever two objects come into contact, an exchange of materials occurs between them.” Mistek et al, ,
It should come as no surprise that evidence rules and their application are often without regard to, and indeed in conflict with, scientific findings. That is a challenge every advocate faces, the law as it is versus the law as it should be. But science can be enlisted to try and change evidence or evidence-related
There was a time in this nation’s history when jurors knew the witnesses – they were neighbors or more – and had some sense of who was reliable and who was not, who was prone to lie and who could be counted on to tell the truth.[1] This was probably an imperfect tool, one subject
Bruce Springstein’s inimitable lyrics speak of someone “blinded by the light.” They came to mind, sadly, when reviewing a defense lawyer’s attempt to impeach a cooperating witness. In that case, the lawyer followed a model that is a recurring problem in trial advocacy, lawyers “blindered by the lie.” What do I mean? Decades ago I
Can trial lawyers and advocacy teachers learn from a book about false confessions, moving beyond that specific problem to more general lessons about jurors, belief systems, and persuasion? The answer, at least if one reads DUPED, is a resounding “yes.” Let me take you to that book, the scary phenomenon of false confessions as they
In 1992, Willie Veasy confessed to a murder, a confession a jury accepted despite a time card showing him to have been at work as a dishwasher 8 miles away. In 2001, Jermel Lewis signed a confession admitting to participating in Philadelphia’s worst mass killing – the seven homicides in what was known as the
Among the many issues to be consider by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this next year, one with low visibility but high impact is the question posed in this column’s title – when deciding what factors a judge may consider before imposing sentence, may a defendant’s history of arrests be considered? According to a recent
Experts. One might say that lawyers ‘can’t live them and can’t live without them.’ Experts are often key (or deemed key) to an effective trial strategy; experts can be the key to a correct adjudication or the cause of a miscarriage of justice; and they can bedevil advocates either by their deft maneuvering or clumsy
As advocacy teachers and advocates we thrust “theme” on our students and our audiences [jurors]. We do so with good cause – and we insist that it be embedded in the primacy moment of our presentation. Our students comply – with somber or indignant righteousness they intone the catchphrase of the case, be it the
A jury of nine spoke with one voice. Donald Trump sexually assaulted a woman, brazenly, in a high-end department store, lied about it, and maliciously defamed his victim. To put it mildly, Mr. Trump was likely not the easiest client to represent, and his cause not the easiest to defend. But the case warrants a