Experts. One might say that lawyers ‘can’t live them and can’t live without them.’ Experts are often key (or deemed key) to an effective trial strategy; experts can be the key to a correct adjudication or the cause of a miscarriage of justice; and they can bedevil advocates either by their deft maneuvering or clumsy
Think of a Viking. A four word command, a simple task. And what pops into your mind? Is it something like this picture, like the fierce warrior Leif Erickson? That’s what transpired when the grave of a Viking was discovered in 1878. This is what was seen (an artist’s rendering): The assumption – a male
Civil and criminal court litigators – beware. A new decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in a criminal appeal has radically upset the calculus lawyers must perform if they lose a motion in limine and want to decide whether to front (or “own”) the bad fact. Doing so may now cost a litigant the chance
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,
The following “one line lessons” for excellence in advocacy were contributed by members of the national trial advocacy listserv. The submissions are organized topically, with the contributors’ names preceding their contributions. CASE THEORY Brett Bayne Shamelessly stolen from Herb Brooks and the 1984 Miracle on Ice, he reportedly strolled the bench behind the players
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,
It is a regular occurrence in trials for one party to approach the Judge and say “Your Honor,” they just opened the door to X; may I now ask questions or present evidence on that point?” The response may be more reactive than reasoned, and that is because we rarely discuss the legal principles underpinning
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
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
As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently stated, when dealing with hearsay “[t]hings can get complicated pretty quickly…At times, the line that divides hearsay from non-hearsay can be difficult to discern.” Nowhere is that more true than with “state of mind” hearsay; but a great deal of clarity has been brought to the issue as a