The Indigent’s Right To Demand Expert Assistance

Imagine being the lawyer assigned to handle a high-profile, “cold” [twenty year old] murder case where the evidence was all scientific:  The swab from [the victim’s] left fingernail included a mixture of DNA profiles…[and] defendant’s DNA profile matched the major donor’s. Vaginal and rectal swabs…also matched defendant’s DNA profile.“  What do you need?  You need

The Danger of the Non-Leading Cross-Examination

If news accounts are accurate, Paul Manafort’s lawyers twice asked non-leading questions, on cross-examination, of the Government’s most important witnesses – the defendant’s accountant and Rick Gates, the latter the sometimes partner of or aide to Manafort.  And again, if the news accounts are accurate, the answers hurt. What occurred?  In each instance, the lawyer

Lawyers, Liars and Privileged Communications

If a client tells a lie to her/his lawyer, is that communication still privileged? The answer is indisputably “yes,” and if a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/ex-state-chief-justice-backs-embattled-former-state-prosecutor-20180801.html)  is accurate a former State Supreme Court Justice got that question wrong. What’s the background?  A lawyer disciplinary hearing was looking into whether a former prosecutor improperly

EVIDENCE LAW TOOLS – THE BOOK VERSUS THE APP

Lawyers want (and need) easy tools for handling Evidence issues.  Their understanding of the Rules, their application and their interplay may be hobbled by whether their Law School education was at the hands of a theorist rather than a practice-focused educator, the frequency with which they are in court, and their willingness  to read, re-read

“Liar” and “Malarkey” – Words for Prosecutors to Avoid

It is tempting, and understandably so, for any lawyer to argue to the jury that an opposing witness is a “liar,” that the witness’ story is “malarkey,” or that the story given was “an insult to the jury’s intelligence,” as long as the proof supports those conclusions.  But a recent 1st Circuit decision warns prosecutors