To some lawyers, it is not clear when the duty to correct errors from old cases expires. If you prosecuted a case in 2001, and learn of new evidence in 2017 that casts doubt on the conviction, must you notify anyone? And if you represented someone convicted long ago, or a witness, and now have
It can be argued that the notion of the trial as a “search for the truth” is incompatible with the adversarial system. After all, the adversarial system – except possibly as governed by the ethical commands prosecutors face to “seek justice” – is one based upon zealous representation and the desire of each side to
The below post comes from Temple Beasley School of Law student Veronica Schad, currently a 2L. It is an anecdotal but useful ‘survey’ regarding the prevalence of social media evidence in Family Court proceedings and the judicial response to the same. During my summer legal internship, I found myself in Family Court at 15th and
The April 2017 decision by Attorney General Sessions to not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) was announced as part of what he claimed would be efforts to “advance forensic science and help combat the rise in violent crime.” Whatever the Department of Justice has in mind for combatting a putative rise in
Rule 703 embodies a tension between letting experts do their jobs of gathering information and forming opinions and limiting disclosure of what information the experts gathered. Experts who are good go to lots and lots of sources before they reach a conclusion. And this is encouraged under Rule 703, as long as those sources are
Witness memories, however flawed or imprecise, are often the core evidence at trial. Yet anyone who studies memory knows that recollection of event gist (“I’ll never forget being robbed”) may be long-lasting but accurate recall of event detail fades within hours, or at most a day, after the occurrence. This is shown in what
Part 1 of this article [https://www2.law.temple.edu/aer/confronting-oppo…trategies-part-1/] detailed the suggested approaches and checklists of several advocacy experts on how to confront and cross-examine the opposing expert witness. Those checklists, while all useful, paid inadequate heed to the interplay of courtroom skills and evidence law. In part 2, this article suggests a more comprehensive paradigm for
It needs no citation of authority to say that an expert is the most difficult witness to cross-examine. United States v. 23.76 Acres of Land, 32 F.R.D. 593, 596 (D. Md. 1963) Her job is not an easy one, because she is engaging in high stakes battle with an articulate, knowledgeable, and experienced adversary. Easton,
If we do not grasp the incredible power of credibility…we can argue with all the skill and artistry of the greatest orators ever spawned by history, but we will never win. Gerry Spence, HOW TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME. A lawyer’s credibility is key in the presentation of a case. That is not
The more a trial is based on live witness testimony, the more it is an exercise in assessing (and sometimes only guessing) whether memory equals fact. What has been written about eyewitness identification testimony – that “ in light of the malleable nature of memory, the effectiveness of scrutinising identification evidence at trial is dependent