Speakers: Brandon Garrett, Nicholas Scurich, and William Crozier. Presented by CSAFE. Recording available.
Resources
NIST Study Will Help Labs Distinguish Between Hemp and Marijuana
Jan. 13, 2021 Statement of US Department of Justice on the PCAST Report
The US DOJ published a statement on the Sept. 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. The DOJ explains its disagreements with the 2016 report in the statement. In summary, the DOJ’s position is that: Traditional forensic pattern examination methods—as currently practiced—do not belong …
Jan. 13, 2021 Statement of US Department of Justice on the PCAST ReportRead More
NY Legal Aid Society’s DNA Unit presents 6th Annual Questioning Forensics Conference
Free webinar sponsored by NY Legal Aid Society
NY Legal Aid Society’s DNA Unit presents 6th Annual Questioning Forensics ConferenceRead More
Defending Drug Overdose Homicides Training
Live webinar, Sponsored by NACDL
2021 Forensic Trial Litigation CLE at Duke Law
Sponsored by Duke Law
ANSI/ASB Standard 018, Standard for Validation of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems, First Edition, 2020 (Part 4)
This four-part webinar series presented by Promega provides information on new/emerging standards and best practice recommendations applicable to forensic biology and DNA testing laboratories. These documents include new requirements for training and validation in serology and various aspects of DNA testing, as well as DNA data interpretation and software, and protocol development and verification. This …
United States v. Tibbs, 2016-CF1-19431.
After applying the Daubert factors, the court reached the conclusion that ballistic matching lacks the scientific integrity to make statements of certainty. The court limited the ballistics expert testimony to only stating that the gun could not be excluded as a potential source of the bullet.
Missouri v. Goodwin-Bey, No. 1531-CR00555-01 (Cir. Ct. Green County, Mo., Dec. 16, 2016).
The court allows the ballistics expert testimony, but limits the testimony to say that the gun in question could not be eliminated as a source of the bullet.
Missouri v. Goodwin-Bey, No. 1531-CR00555-01 (Cir. Ct. Green County, Mo., Dec. 16, 2016).Read More
Williams v. United States, 130 A.3d 343 (D.C. 2016).
The court affirmed the admissibility of the Government’s expert witness’s statement of certainty concerning the ballistic evidence. The expert testified that the markings were, “unique to that gun, and that gun only.” Id. at 346. Due to a failure to object by the defense and a lack of binding law that says otherwise, the inclusion …
Williams v. United States, 130 A.3d 343 (D.C. 2016).Read More
United States v. Taylor, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D.N.M. 2009).
The court finds that ballistics science is admissible, and notes the level of subjectivity and the impossibility of a perfect match in this field of science. The court prohibits the expert testimony from saying that the ballistic match is to a scientific, practical, or absolute certainty to exclude all other firearms.
United States v. Taylor, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D.N.M. 2009).Read More
United States v. Glynn, 578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
The court finds that ballistics examination lacks the rigor and certainty of other forensic sciences, and there a limit is needed on the degree of confidence given during testimony. The court limits testimony to “more likely than not”.
United States v. Glynn, 578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).Read More
United States v. Alls, No. 2:08-cr-00223-ALM (S.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2009).
Defendant filed a motion to exclude expert testimony which was denied in part and granted in part. The court held that the expert could provide testimony concerning toolmark evidence, but could not testify that a match was found to a degree of certainty which excludes all other firearms in the world from being the source.
United States v. Alls, No. 2:08-cr-00223-ALM (S.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2009).Read More
United States v. Love, No. 2:09-cr-20317-JPM (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2011).
Although the defendant’s motion to exclude testimony was denied, the court held that the toolmark expert may not testify that a match was found to an “absolute” or “practical” certainty. This conclusion was reached after evidence was presented that suggested this level of certainty was impossible.
United States v. Love, No. 2:09-cr-20317-JPM (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2011).Read More
Understanding the Differing Roles of Forensic Mental Health Practitioners: Do I need an expert, a consultant, or both?
Sponsored by NCIDS, Presenter: Dr. Brittany Bate