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.

Race Data Matters: Using Expert Testimony and Social Science Data about Discriminatory Policing to Win Pretrial Motions: Part II presented by Alison Siegler, Clinical Law Professor, University of Chicago Law School

Race Matters I: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice
September 14-15, 2017 | Detroit, MI

It is crucial for a defense attorney to know the background and training of the forensic nurse examiner involved in the client’s case. A forensic nurse’s initial education does not include training on how to give an expert opinion related to his or her objective findings. Through continuing education and board certification, however, it is possible for a forensic nurse to be considered an expert.

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

Presented by: Detective James Trainum (ret.), Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department; and Deja Vishny, Homicide Practice Group Coordinator and Deputy Training Director, Wisconsin State Public Defender

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.

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.