COA found no plain error in allowing firearm identification testimony. Former NCSCL analyst Wilson testified in detail about her methodology, but provided little information about application of the method to the case at hand.
In person and live webcast, Sponsored by Indigent Defense Services, the Duke Law Center for Criminal Justice and Professional Responsibility, and the Wilson Center for Science and Justice
Indigent Defense Services, the Duke Law Center for Criminal Justice and Professional Responsibility, and the Wilson Center for Science and Justice are pleased to announce the eighth annual CLE, “Whiskey in the Courtroom: Evolving Trends in Forensic Science.” Whiskey 8 will take place on March 4, 2022 at Duke Law School. We plan to be in-person …
Dec. 2021 statement Addressing a USDOJ document that instructs firearms examiners to avoid using terminology such as the weapon “could have fired” the bullets or cartridge cases, “consistent with” or “could not be excluded” as having fired the bullets or cartridge cases.
COA held that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimonyof the State’s GSR expert because he followed the State Crime Lab’s procedures asrequired to meet Rule 702(a)’s reliability requirement where defendant made statement upon GSR collection that he had been asleep during the 5+ hour period between shooting and collection.
4-day no-cost virtual program offered by FTCoE and NIJ
Free Webinar offered by NACDL. Presenter: Brendan Max