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
The waning days of the Trump administration saw a fervid, if not frenzied, rush to put out policy statement or decisions meant to tie the hands of the Biden administration, including declaring Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, labeling a Yemeni group a terrorist organization, recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over parts of the Sahara, allowing oil
Eyewitness testimony—seen more as the staple of state court trials rather than federal, more often the subject of focus in criminal trials than in civil litigation—is, in fact, ubiquitous. For federal courts, it is involved in trials and in review of state court convictions, particularly on habeas. The prominence of eyewitness testimony, and the
In a world of Covid-19 infection, prisoners and pretrial detainees are out of sight and, to too many, out of mind. Perhaps in recognition of that phenomenon, the Philadelphia Bar’s Criminal Justice Section named Assistant Defender Thomas Innes as the recipient of its annual Thurgood Marshall Award. Mr. Innes is Director of Prisoner Services with
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,