This essay is part of a White Paper being submitted to the International Academy of Trial Lawyers in support of a motion calling for abolition of the death penalty. I have been a capital case litigator for thirty-plus years in Pennsylvania in the United States of America. What does that connote? Since the early
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, ,
Governor Shapiro’s decision to continue the moratorium on executions and call for legislation to end the death penalty deserve praise and support as being just, smart, moral, and good criminal justice policy. As the Governor said, “The system is fallible, and the outcome is irreversible.” Pennsylvania’s death penalty process has been a failure – it
Many may believe (depending on the jurisdiction or the judge) it to be fundamental – indigent defendants are entitled not only to free counsel but to the essential services needed to investigate and present a defense: funds for an investigator to track down witnesses, funds for a psychiatrist or psychologist for a mental health defense,
Capital cases – those where the death penalty was sought and then imposed – can last for decades. There are at least two reasons for this – they deserve the greatest attention and review because life is at stake; and the poor lawyering that led to so many capital convictions warrants that review and takes
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,
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