North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services
// by Sarah Olson
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
Whiskey in the Courtroom 8: Evolving Trends in Forensic Science – Firearms EvidenceRead More
// by Sarah Olson
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 …
Whiskey in the Courtroom 8: Evolving Trends in Forensic Science – Firearms EvidenceRead More
// by Sarah Olson
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.
// by Sarah Olson
// by Sarah Olson
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.
// by Sarah Olson
// by Sarah Olson
4-day no-cost virtual program offered by FTCoE and NIJ
// by Sarah Olson
Free Webinar offered by NACDL. Presenter: Brendan Max
Webinar – Litigating ShotSpotter Evidence: The Science and the LawRead More
// by Sarah Olson
// by Sarah Olson
Research study on bullet and cartridge case comparison finding the odds of disagreement between examiners about the evidential strength of a comparison were approximately five times larger in the blind than in the non-blind procedure, with disagreement about 42.3% and 12.5% of the proposed conclusions, respectively. Also, the odds that their proposed conclusion was reported …
// by Sarah Olson
// by Sarah Olson
// by Sarah Olson
// by Sarah Olson
// by Sarah Olson