More than a decade ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court wrote the following about eyewitnesses: “Without persuasive extrinsic evidence, one cannot know for certain which identifications are accurate and which are false—which are the product of reliable memories and which are distorted by one of a number of factors.” State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208,
David Raack[1] Although some law schools have robust and well-developed advocacy programs, a significant number don’t. Schools without a strong program may wish to develop one, and this article addresses that scenario. (The term “advocacy program” is used here to include mock trial, moot court, and ADR components.) The purpose of this discussion is
Did you know about the lawyer who: Told their client they could not testify because their criminal record and its details would be admissible where the law was directly to the contrary. Let the jury know their client “lawyered up” and sat idly by while the prosecutor argued that as proof of guilt. Filed a
Is it impermissible to use the term “victim” in a criminal trial? On its surface, the question may appear silly – the trial has a victim [accuser] and defendant [accused]. Yet the issue arises periodically, and was highlighted in recent trials. First, who or what is a victim? According to Black’s Law Dictionary, it is
Despite familiarity with the phrase “less is more,” lawyers can’t seem to help themselves – they ask question after question after question. That this irks jurors is beyond doubt. As one article written by a jurist who interviewed hundreds of jurors reported, The most important theme that came through on evidence presentation: do not repeat
It is no surprise that many feel dismay over the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse and see the verdict as resulting from the American tolerance of gun culture; a nearly all-white jury favoring a white defendant; a baby-faced [in the jurors’ eyes] teen who did not match a stereotype of a ‘gun-toting’ marauder; and a reaction
When is a DNA ‘match,’ the gold standard for forensic discipline, accurate but insufficient? A recent decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court reminds us of the limits of even this most potent form of proof. The power of DNA to prove guilt, establish actual innocence, or ‘raise a reasonable doubt’ cannot be questioned. More than
The poet John Donne wrote the timeless words Death, be not proud, though some have called thee Mighty and dreadful, for thou are not so. But in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the more apt words might be Of our death penalty system BE NOT PROUD, For too many lawyers are not mighty but instead are
There remains either disagreement or misunderstanding as to when an expert may [or must] repeat hearsay relied on to reach an opinion. At a Masters in Trial Advocacy EVIDENCE lecture we presented the following hypothetical: An expert comes to court to testify about how a construction accident occurred. The expert states “I went to
Biases distort judgment. It’s as simple as that. They skew how we think, what we believe, and the value we set when we judge the pain and loss of others. And of course this is not limited to law, lawyering and courts – the problem is everywhere. For example, studies have shown that in medicine