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
Nearly thirty-five years ago, the problems with ‘forensic’ hypnosis were acknowledged as real – “[T]hat hypnosis guarantees the accuracy of recall is as yet without established foundation…” “[I]n fact, hypnosis often has no effect at all on memory.” “The most common response to hypnosis, however, appears to be an increase in both correct and incorrect
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
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
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
The headline was simple – another person exonerated in a case where police claim he had confessed and where two eyewitnesses positively identified him. But absent from the story was any mention of DNA as the exculpating tool. Instead, it was reported as follows: The experts reviewed surveillance footage of the botched heist of Northeast
Memory – how good is it? The law favors memory – we make witnesses tell their stories months or years after an event but preclude use of their diaries or memos to the file. And memory reliability gets ‘politicized‘ – those who prosecute often default in favor of trusting memories long after the event, while
We have all heard the phrase “missing the forest for the trees.” That tunnel vision is, sadly, predominant in trials – lawyers miss the big picture by focusing on only one aspect of an argument or objection; and judges, guided to the narrower perspective, almost always are then drawn away from the big picture. This