NACDL to Focus on Service and Support for Members, Clients, and Community Throughout Virus EmergencyLearn More
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Auman v. State
In the instant case, the lack of a causal link between the defendant's actions and murder committed by third-party after defendant was already in police custody does not support felony murder conviction; causation must be an element of proof for felony murder because it restricts the reach of the felony murder rule to those cases where defendant's liability is consistent with established principles of criminal responsibility.
Crawford v. Washington
U.S. Supreme Court Amicus curiae brief of NACDL, ACLU and ACLU of Washington.
Argument: The Court (Scalia, J.) ruled 7-2 that the Sixth Amendment "commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination." 124 S.Ct. at 1370. The Court emphasized that Confrontation Clause protection only applies to "testimonial" out-of-court statements, such as statements against penal interest (the statement at issue in this case). Encouragingly, the Court acknowledged its ruling creates some tension with other hearsay exceptions, such as spontaneous ("excited") utterances; the Court specifically refused to decide whether the Sixth Amendment incorporates an "historical" exception for dying declarations.