Brief filed: 06/07/2010
Allshouse v. Pennsylvania
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 09-1396
Petitioner was convicted in state court of simple assault and endangering the welfare of a child; state supreme court held that a statement by the infant’s four-year-old sister to a county children’s and youth services investigator that petitioner injured the infant’s arm was “nontestimonial” and admissible without violating the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. Statements elicited by government child advocacy investigators are forensic in nature and therefore testimonial, although there is a split in authority on this question.
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
Prof. Jules Epstein, Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE.