Challenging Outdated Technology in Court and the Marketplace

The below article is a guest-authored piece to which the host of this BLOG contributed. The other authors are Michael Cherry, Edward J. Imwinkelreid, Jack King, Philip Mause and Elven Riley. It identifies advances in two areas of science and raises concerns of what the consequences may be when science and technology advance but courts,

“INNOCENT” OR “CAN’T BE SURE WHAT HAPPENED?” – – SCOTT TUROW AND THE CLOSING ARGUMENT

It is conventional wisdom that a story of actual innocence – there was no crime, the wrong person is on trial, the accused acted in self-defense – is the preferred modality in criminal cases.  Why?  An argument of ‘they can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt’ may come across like a schoolyard taunt – my

COLLECTIVE WISDOM: WHETHER TO OBJECT TO THE NOT-SO-QUALIFIED EXPERT

It is rare if ever that a proffered expert will be deemed so unqualified as to be precluded from testifying.  Why?  The threshold for expertise is decidedly low.  To use the Pennsylvania test, “[t]o qualify as an expert witness, a witness need only have a reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge, on a subject for which expert

Masks, Demeanor and Deception

Do mask-wearing witnesses deprive criminal defendants of their right of Confrontation?  Does impairing the ability of jurors and lawyers to fully assess ‘demeanor’ result in less reliable trials?  Can jury selection be fair of prospective jurors’ faces are covered?   Or is this all a Shakespearean “much ado about nothing” because we – the great majority