Anyone who thinks about the Law of Evidence knows that there are gaps between cognitive psychology and the rules we try cases by. Excitement may distort or inhibit perception, but we permit and rely upon excited utterances as statements valued for their sincerity and truth. The dangers of limiting instructions are clear – they sometimes
Science in the courtroom must be reliable, and to ensure that we want and expect judges to serve as gatekeepers, examining both reliability and relevance; but we also want and need to protect the right to present a defense. Two cases illustrate the apparent collision of these demands and the result – two new trials.
How do we assess the expert we consult, the one we hire and proffer, or the expert we will be confronting? If it is the opposing expert there will be a deposition (in a civil case) and testimony from prior cases as well as intelligence gathering from attorneys in your field who have faced the
We think of experts as those who have studied and then put their knowledge to use – they have hands on experience, be it as the treating psychiatrist, the engineer who has built bridges, or the agricultural agent who has worked with farmers foe decades. And when selecting an expert for deposition or trial –
In a recent (October, 2019) manslaughter trial in Philadelphia, the jury heard a lot about the victim, information not limited to conduct at the time of the fight that led to his death. The jury heard, as an early defense witness, a bartender from Florida. Although the death occurred in 2018, the jury heard about
The dilemma is simple, the law growing more complex. A prosecutor wants to tell a rich and complete story, and asks the Officer or Detective how or why a suspect came to be arrested, or even how a person became the focus of police scrutiny or came to be in a photo array. Yet eliciting
Pennsylvania Courts still struggle with the 803(3) state of mind hearsay exception The day a woman died, a note was found on her day planner in her handwriting that read “”If something happens to me – JOE.” Needless to say, “Joe” ended up charged with murder. And in upholding the admission of the note
“The DNA profile from the crime scene shares the same alleles as the DNA from the accused.” That is a statement of fact or an expert opinion, but whatever it is it is not lay opinion. “I ride bicycles a lot. When the brake pads start to wear down, it’s riskier to ride in the
The not-so-veiled threat made to Michael Cohen – “Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot.” – created an uproar and ultimately an apology of sorts. Whether the
Everyone has seen words taken out of context, and thus given new and unintended meaning. Consider the movie review that reads “nothing about this film is excellent.” What ends up in the advertisement? “Daily Journal says ’excellent.’” What happens in advertising or political chicanery has no place in the courtroom, and Rule 106 is intended