THE CHARACTER WITNESS CONUNDRUM

  Pennsylvania law, as does federal, permits a person accused of a crime to ‘defend’ in part by proving their ‘good’ character, limited to the pertinent trait.  If the crime is robbery or assault, the defense is that the accused is non-violent; and if the crime charged is forgery or theft, that the person is

POLARIZE THE CASE

In one iteration of his “Ten Commandments” lecture on cross-examination, the famed advocacy teacher Irving Younger posited that ‘less is more.’  When showing a witness’ bias, you need not call them out as a liar; instead, simply argue in closing “and the witness, who testified for the defendant – it’s their mother.”  According to Younger,

TOOLMARK EVIDENCE: CAN’T LIVE WITH IT, CAN’T…

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,  ,

BLINDERED BY THE LIE

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