North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services
// by Sarah Olson
Successful Daubert challenge to the admissibility of STRMix genotyping software due to the complexity of the DNA mixture in the case at hand. Defendant’s Daubert motion and the ruling are linked in this article.
United States v. Gissantaner, 417 F. Supp. 3d 857 (W. D. Mich. 2019)Read More
// by Sarah Olson
In August, the North Carolina Supreme Court weighed in on drug identification once again in State v. Osborne, ___ N.C. ___ (August 16, 2019). Defender Educator Phil Dixon discusses admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in drug cases in this blog post.
Sufficiency vs. Admissibility: Drug I.D. after State v. OsborneRead More
// by Sarah Olson
Felony death by vehicle case where the trooper accident reconstruction expert who analyzed the accident could not reach a conclusive expert opinion about who was driving. An officer provided lay opinion testimony based on the same information. The court concluded: “the facts about the accident and measurements available were simply not sufficient to support an …
// by Sarah Olson
In cases where fingerprint evidence is the only evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, attorneys should consider the Irick rule. State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 491-492 (1977) holds that “[f]ingerprint evidence, standing alone, is sufficient to withstand a motion for nonsuit only if there is ‘substantial evidence of circumstances from which the jury can …
// by Sarah Olson
The test in North Carolina for identification procedures prior to the enactment of the EIRA was stated in State v. Rogers, 355 N.C. 420, 432 (2002) as follows: Whether an identification procedure is unduly suggestive depends on the totality of the circumstances. State v. Pigott, 320 N.C. 96, 99 (1987). A due process analysis requires a …
// by Sarah Olson
Ronald Cotton was wrongfully convicted of two rapes and burglaries in 1985 and 1987. Although innocent, Ronald Cotton served over 10 years in prison, primarily due to erroneous eyewitness identification. DNA testing in 1995 revealed that evidence from one victim did not match Cotton, but instead matched with another man who had confessed to the …
// by Sarah Olson
Article by the Innocence Project identifying concerns with bite mark analysis and discussing five cases where individuals were convicted based largely on bite mark analysis, only to be proven innocent through DNA years later.
Cases Where DNA Revealed that Bite Mark Analysis Led to Wrongful Arrests and ConvictionsRead More
// by Chris Liu-Beers
This document provides the relevant statutes and summarizes the case law on the issue of how marijuana should be weighed. It addresses issues such as whether water weight and mature stalks should be included. Links to the State Crime Lab’s relevant procedures are provided, as well as contact information of experts who are available to …
// by Chris Liu-Beers
754 F.Supp. 2d 89 (2010). This opinion by Judge Nancy Gertner is a must-read regarding standards of representation in arson cases. The opinion provides useful information on Daubert hearings, cause and origin testimony, burn patterns, canine evidence and laboratory analysis.
// by Sarah Olson
The Court of Appeals applied the new Daubert test for expert testimony and held that trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State’s expert witness’s testimony about fingerprint evidence. A petition for discretionary review was granted by the NC Supreme Court which subsequently found that discretionary review was improvidently granted, leaving intact the Court …
// by Sarah Olson
In this DWI case, the trial court erred by admitting retrograde extrapolation testimony by the State’s expert witness. To reach her conclusion, the expert assumed that the defendant was in a post-absorptive state at the time of the stop. The expert conceded that there were no facts to support this assumption. The expert’s testimony was …
// by Sarah Olson
Trial court erred in allowing a forensic pathologist’s opinion that the decedent’s death was a homicide as opposed to a suicide that was based on his interpretation of non-medical information conveyed to him by law enforcement officers. The State failed to adequately explain how the expert was in a better position than the jurors to …
// by Sarah Olson
Affirming the decision below, the NCSC held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the defendant’s proffered use of force expert testimony did not meet the standard for admissibility under Rule 702(a). The court determined that the 2011 amendment to NC Rule 702(a) adopts the federal standard for the admission …
// by Chris Liu-Beers
Today, the court of appeals reversed a defendant’s drug convictions because the indictments identified the controlled substances in question using terms that are widely used to describe the drugs, but that are neither the chemical names listed in the controlled substance schedules nor – according to the court – “trade names” for the drugs. Because …
// by Sarah Olson
This 2014 NY decision grants a new trial to the Defendant. The decision describes how new medical research casts doubts on the Shaken Baby Syndrome hypothesis and shows that short falls (which this case involved) can cause death.