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.

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

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

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.

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.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: Law enforcement officers testifying on matters based on their professional experience or training should be treated as expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, rather than Rule 701.  Law enforcement officers have scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.  There is an intractable Circuit split on this issue and the Supreme Court should grant certiorari.  The question presented arises in a wide variety of cases.  Permitting law enforcement officers to furnish lay opinion testimony leads to unfair applications, including law enforcement officers being allowed to offer opinions no other lay witness would be permitted to give.

Materials for arguing against government informant and ex parte discussions regarding the conspiracy and closing off discovery regarding the informant's statements regarding the alleged conspiracy.

Amicus curiae brief of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: DNA laboratory analysts are not infallible. Developing a DNA profile of a suspect from biologic evidence collected in a criminal investigation is a complicated process requiring skill and judgment; making the prosecution expert who declares a DNA “match” available for cross-examination does not obviate the necessity of cross-examination of the lab analyst who actually did the benchwork developing the DNA profile.