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
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
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
Detective testified about cell phone tower location and determined direction of tower based on records. COA held Detective’s testimony was limited to illustrating and interpreting the admitted cell phone records, therefore it did not require scientific or other specialized knowledge and was not expert testimony.
// by Sarah Olson
Plaintiff argued Derek Ellington was not qualified as a digital expert. COA held Ellington testified as a lay witness, not an expert, because he testified to what he saw or experienced in making a forensic copy and demonstrating the defendant did not send the photos to others.
// by Sarah Olson
NCSCL drug chemistry analyst Jennifer West testified about whether fentanyl was an opiate or opioid. Trial court erred in admitting West’s testimony because she lacked training on the issue of whether fentanyl was an opiate or opioid.
// by Sarah Olson
Week-long training program on death investigation.
// by Sarah Olson
John Lentini compiled case information on these wrongful convictions based on questionable laboratory analysis.
// 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
Free Webinar offered by NACDL. Presenters: Michael Price, Laura Koenig, Spencer McInvaille
Webinar – When Google Searches for You: Challenging Geofence WarrantsRead More
// 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
Free to attend live webinar
// by Sarah Olson
Free to attend live webinar