Brief filed: 03/21/2016
State of Ohio v. Wogenstahl
Supreme Court of Ohio; Case No. 2016-0423
Appeal taken from the Hamilton County Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, C.A. Case No. C-140683.
The terms of the microscopic hair comparison analysis (MHCA) review firmly establish the parameters of microscopic hair comparison. Testimony that exceeds those limits is false and erroneous testimony. The terms of the MHCA established the limits of the "science" of microscopic hair comparison for the first time. Juries are overly confident in subjective "sciences" such as microscopic hair comparison. The lower court improperly analyzed the significance of the MHCA review.
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
Amelia R. V. Maxfield, NACDL, Washington, DC; Kristina W. Supler, McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH.