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, ,
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
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
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
A cardinal principle for lawyers is that words count. A closing argument may run afoul of the law when “I believe” slips in; a case may be overturned when a judge ad-libs a jury instruction; and of course a jury may be misled when words are incomprehensible – the bane of most jury instructions –
Governor Shapiro’s decision to continue the moratorium on executions and call for legislation to end the death penalty deserve praise and support as being just, smart, moral, and good criminal justice policy. As the Governor said, “The system is fallible, and the outcome is irreversible.” Pennsylvania’s death penalty process has been a failure – it
Civil and criminal court litigators – beware. A new decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in a criminal appeal has radically upset the calculus lawyers must perform if they lose a motion in limine and want to decide whether to front (or “own”) the bad fact. Doing so may now cost a litigant the chance
Many may believe (depending on the jurisdiction or the judge) it to be fundamental – indigent defendants are entitled not only to free counsel but to the essential services needed to investigate and present a defense: funds for an investigator to track down witnesses, funds for a psychiatrist or psychologist for a mental health defense,