Amended FRE 702 gives defense lawyers ammunition to exclude questionable government expert evidence and prevent experts from overstating their conclusions. Rene Valladares and Hannah Nelson address arguments defense advocates should be prepared to make when confronted with government or court reluctance to apply the text of Rule 702 faithfully.

The law of expert evidence has experienced significant recent developments.  This presentation will discuss the recent amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (experts) and what we as criminal defense lawyers can do to take advantage of the amendment (especially when it comes to excluding government sponsored expert evidence).  The presentation will also cover the recent Supreme Court decisions in Diaz v. United States (opinion on ultimate issue), and Smith v. Arizona (Confrontation Clause).

During its 2023-2024 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed criminal penalties for people who are homeless; blocked the ATF’s regulation of bump stocks; ended Chevron deference, a landmark doctrine of administrative review; and decided that U.S. presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for core constitutional acts taken during their tenure in office. Criminal defense lawyers will talk about these cases for years to come.

Important amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence came into effect on December 1, 2023: Amendments to Rule 106 (rule of completeness), 605 (exclusion of witnesses) and 702 (testimony by experts). These amendments will bring significant opportunities and challenges for defense lawyers. This presentation will discuss how to avoid the challenges and how to capitalize on the opportunities presented by these amendments. We will also discuss amendments that are scheduled to become effective in 2024 as well as important evidence related cases pending before the United States Supreme Court.

To combat questionable prosecution “expert” evidence, defense lawyers need to have a thorough understanding of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and companion rules. This presentation provides practitioners with a framework for Article VII (Opinions and Expert Testimony) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, summarizes defense favorable cases, and presents arguments and tips on how to spot and avoid the most common ways the prosecution abuses expert testimony.  This area is of vital importance now considering the recent amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Confession cases are some of the most difficult to defend; juries, judges prosecutors and even some criminal defense lawyers often believe that only guilty people confess to crimes. The Brendan Dassey case, shown in the Netflix Documentary "Making A Murderer" has highlighted the problem of coerced and false confessions. In the webinar we focus on both suppressing confessions and persuading juries that confessions are false.

Forensic DNA expert Tiffany Roy describes five common types of flawed forensic DNA testimony she encounters when she reviews transcripts of analysts’ testimony.

Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, (ACLUM) Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL), and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, American Civil Liberties Union, and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arizona In Support of Petitioner

Powerpoint slides by Gregory J. Davis, MD, FCAP. Presented at the NACDL Post-Dobbs Defender Skills Summit in July 2023

Powerpoint slides by Mishka Terplan, MD MPH FACOG DFASAM. Presented at NACDL's webinar Post Roe: Building Defenses in Pregnancy-Related Prosecutions in July 2022

When representing men accused of domestic violence, do lawyers consider hiring an expert for the defense? The authors note that experts can help attorneys and jurors better understand the role of stereotypes and how they play a significant role in domestic violence cases. Despite recent research finding that domestic violence is not necessarily a crime against women, the traditional ways of thinking about domestic violence continue to inform how cases are prosecuted.

Although voluntariness is a mainstay of the U.S. legal system, voluntariness and its flip side, coercion, are ill-defined. Likely because of this ambiguity, admissibility decisions for contested confessions have been inconsistent. Some modern-day, often-used interrogation techniques (e.g., investigators feigning friendship) are coercive, even if they appear innocuous and non-adversarial.

The aftermath of an accidental fire can often look the same as the aftermath of an intentionally set fire. This confounding fact has led to many false accusations. John Lentini writes that an arson determination should be viewed with great skepticism if it is based on (1) “low burning,” (2) a fire that burned “hotter than normal” or “faster than normal,” or (3) the appearance of “pour patterns” on a floor without a positive finding of an ignitable liquid in a laboratory test.

Modern technology used by the police (including drones and mobile device forensic tools) and ever-changing drug laws make suppression hearings more challenging for the defense team. Advocates must invoke the Fourth Amendment in a world much different from the one in which the amendment was drafted. The defense attorney must create a well-developed record in support of a client’s claims. One method of developing the record is the use of experts to explain changing science and technology.