North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services
// by Sarah Olson
(1) In aggravated death by distribution, the State need not prove that cocaine alone caused death where the evidence showed the cocaine worked in concert with other drugs; (2) the statute does not require the defendant to have distributed the controlled substance directly to each victim; (3) expert testimony based on certified toxicology reports does …
State v. Wise, No. COA25-683 (N.C. Ct. App. June 3, 2026)Read More
// by Sarah Olson
Minnesota trial court order from 2025 excluding testimony regarding interpretation of a complex DNA mixture for a claimed 5-person indistinguishable mixture on the ground that the lab’s interpretation of the profile exceeded the bounds of their validations. Another sample that was a 2-person mixture containing 180 pg of DNA was also excluded on the ground …
// by Sarah Olson
In this appeal, the Court considers whether expert testimony regarding Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma (SBS/AHT) is sufficiently reliable to go before a jury in two separate cases — State v. Nieves and State v. Cifelli. The defense in both cases moved to exclude the testimony, challenging the scientific basis and reliability of the theory …
// by Sarah Olson
Trial court erred in allowing State’s Drug Recognition Expert’s testimony where the DRE’s testimony did not apply the certification principles and methods reliably to the facts of this case. In the case at hand, the DRE performed an evaluation based on a video viewed after the incident whereas protocol required a live in person evaluation …
// by Sarah Olson
Unpublished Court of Appeals opinion addressing proximate cause, chain of causation, intervening acts, and jury instructions on intervening cause and involuntary manslaughter.
State v. Anderson, 294 N.C. App. 125 (2024) (unpublished)Read More
// by Sarah Olson
A police officer employed a widely accepted technique to examine fingerprints and sufficiently explained his how he reached his conclusions or applied the method to the facts.
// by Sacejewia White
COA held that the defendant is entitled to face recognition information as part of requested discovery in accordance with Brady v. Maryland.
// by Sacejewia White
The Maryland Supreme Court discusses studies completed after the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report in 2016 which demonstrates the lack of repeatability of the method.
// by Sarah Olson
Court of Appeals decision finding that circumstantial evidence supported the conclusion that defendant sold fentanyl instead of heroin to the victim. The court also noted “[w]hile the evidence does not foreclose the possibility that fentanyl may not have been the sole cause of [the victim’s] death, there is ample evidence to support a conclusion that …
// by Sarah Olson
Error to admit CMPD expert testimony regarding fingerprint evidence where testimony lacked detail about methodology used and failed to demonstrate reliable application of his procedure to the facts.
// by Sarah Olson
NAS Report concluded that the ACE-V method of latent fingerprint analysis is likely not as reliable as often portrayed, however the Court of Appeals found that the NAS Report did not conclude that fingerprint evidence is too unreliable to be admitted at trial. On appeal, defendant did not show failure to challenge the general method …
// by Sarah Olson
Testimony of Dr. Jonathan Privette (forensic pathologist) and Dr. Justin Brower (forensic toxicologist) re: fentanyl overdose, mixing of fentanyl and cocaine
// by Sarah Olson
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.
// by Sarah Olson
EDVA decision holding a geofence warrant was unconstitutional.
// 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.