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.

Expert evidence is frequently exploited by prosecutors keen on securing a conviction regardless of the reliability of the expert or the expert’s methodology. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in forensic science. To combat this pervasive problem, defense lawyers need to have a thorough understanding of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and companion rules. Rene L. Valladares and Hannah Nelson discuss the rules, summarize cases favorable to the defense, and provide useful checklists.

Comments to the Judicial Conference of the United States Practice & Procedure Committee regarding proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 615, and 702.

NACDL lists experts referred by its members, and an expert was in your search.

Comments to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules regarding proposed amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The authors provide attorneys with guidance when selecting and consulting forensic mental health experts.

With increasing frequency since the 1970s, psychologists have been admitted as expert witnesses to educate factfinders about the many facets of eyewitness memory. The authors provide an overview of three distinct topics about which eyewitness experts typically testify: eyewitness identification, repressed memory, and child witnesses.

NACDL lists experts referred by its members, and an expert was in your search.

Brief Of Amici Curiae The Tennessee Innocence Project, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Investigation of the prosecution’s scientific or technical evidence on critical facts essential to the defense is a necessary part of rendering constitutionally adequate counsel. Counsel’s investigation of forensic sciences and techniques related to a fact essential to a defense is critical because of the powerful impact expert testimony has at trial. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Science’s report on the forensic science community highlights the shortcomings of the field as well as the powerful impact that faulty forensic science can have on those accused of a crime. Extensive research has shown a positive correlation between faulty forensic science testimony and the wrongful conviction of those accused of a crime. The United States Supreme Court’s analysis of defense counsel’s responsibilities to investigate and obtain expert assistance in Hinton v. Alabama directly applies to this case. Trial counsel’s failure to introduce Inspector Miller’s statements through the excited-utterance exception is the kind of unforced error that the Supreme Court recognizes as constitutionally inadequate. 

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant and Reversal.

Argument: The Sixth Amendment requires trial counsel to investigate mitigating factors in a death penalty case. The duty to investigate mitigating factors extends to investigating evidence of trauma and abuse. The duty to investigate abuse and trauma was well established when Terry was sentenced to death in 1997. The duty to ensure a constitutionally adequate social history investigation lies squarely with trial counsel. Trial counsel does not fulfill their Sixth Amendment obligations merely by hiring experts. Trial counsel is required to actively oversee the mitigation investigation. The decision below departs from that precedent. The district court erred in finding that trial counsel conducted an adequate investigation. The district court erred in attributing trial counsel’s errors to Terry’s experts. 

NACDL lists experts referred by its members, and an expert was in your search.

This month Matthew T. Mangino reviews The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist: A True Story of Injustice in the American South by Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington.

NACDL lists experts referred by its members, and an expert was in your search.

The broad issue here is differential diagnosis v. differential etiology.  Basically, doctors should not testify as to how an injury occurred.  Their expertise is limited to and so should their testimony be limited to diagnosing the injury. The opinion is very well written and provides a pretty good road map of how the lawyers attached the testimony.  It has broad implications. Both the opinion and the filings are attached.

NACDL lists experts referred by its members, and an expert was in your search.