Arson
- United States v. Hebshie, 4/12/2019754 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.
Bite Mark
- Cases Where DNA Revealed that Bite Mark Analysis Led to Wrongful Arrests and Convictions, 4/16/2019Article 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.
- Criminal Law – Expert Testimony on Bite Marks, 1/1/1981A law review article on State v. Temple, 302 N.C. 1 (1981) where the NC Supreme Court held that testimony regarding bite marks identification analysis is admissible as long as the trial court can verify the scientific methods used were accurate and reliable. Includes a summary of the case, background, and an analysis of the …
- Eddie Lee Howard, Jr. v. State of Mississippi, 8/28/2020Bite mark case where conviction was reversed based on changes in the science being newly discovered evidence.
- State of Georgia v. Sheila Denton – Order for New Trial, 4/19/20202020 Order granting a motion for a new trial based upon advancements in scientific understanding and American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) guidelines that would compel a different expert opinion if the case were tried today. In 2016, the ABFO Standards and Guidelines were changed significantly to no longer allow a conclusion of “exact match” …
- State v. Trogdon, 9/20/2011715 S.E.2d 635, N.C.App., September 20, 2011 (NO. COA10-1344) Defendant argued that the forensic odontologist improperly invaded the province of the jury by testifying that the defendant caused the bite mark on the child. The court held that even if the specific assertions that the defendant was the one who made the bite marks were …
Blood and Bodily Fluids
- State v. Corbett & Martens, 839 S.E.2d 361 (2019), 2/4/2020Expert Stuart James’s treatise on blood spatter said that suspected bloodstains should be subject to presumptive, confirmatory, and DNA testing before analysis of the spatter is conducted. The court held that blood spatter expert’s conclusions regarding untested stains on clothing did not result from reliable application of scientific methods and evidentiary errors were prejudicial.
Child Abuse Allegations
- Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park, 4/16/2011662 F.3d 897 (2011). 1983 claim where 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes an interim lucid period between shaking and collapse
- Commonwealth v. Millien (2016), 5/19/2020In this Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case, Justice C.J. Gants held that the defendant was denied her right to effective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to seek public funds in order to retain an expert witness to offer an opinion as to the cause of head injuries sustained by defendant’s infant child. The …
- People v. Bailey (2014), 5/19/2020In this County Court (Monroe County, New York) case, Judge James J. Piampiano ordered a new trial for the defendant, who was previously convicted of Murder in the Second Degree, holding that newly discovered evidence regarding Shaken Baby Syndrome warranted vacatur. The court concluded that expert witness testimony based on a shift in medical consensus …
- State v. Bailey, 4/16/2014This 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.
Crime Scene Investigation
- State v. Denton, COA18-742 (2019), 6/4/2019Felony 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 …
Detection Dogs
- State v. Dail (unpublished), 11/15/2011No. COA 11-384 Defendant’s Brief contains caselaw regarding canine sniffs and Fourth Amendment protections.
- State v. Walton, _ N.C. App. _ (April 20, 2021), 5/11/2021A sniffing canine can be found to be property trained despite the canine having an expired certification at the time of the the sniff, so long as the canine has a history of certification and at least one other unexpired certification. Additionally, the handler’s training being inconsistent with department standards is not by itself insufficient …
- Supreme Court: Alert by a Trained or Certified Drug Dog Normally Provides Probable Cause, 2/20/2013UNC School of Government blog post by Jeff Welty that explains the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 holding in Florida v. Harris. Harris holds that when a trained and certified drug dog alerts on a vehicle, that normally provides probable cause to search the car, even if there are no records regarding the dog’s performance in the field. …
Digital Evidence
- State v. Gore, 846 S.E.2d 295 (2020), 6/16/2020Defendant’s CSLI was searched pursuant to a court order, instead of a warrant. However, the court held that the order met the warrant requirements. Thus, there was no error and the defendant was not entitled to suppression of CSLI on Fourth Amendment grounds.
- State v. Mitchell, 840 S.E.2d 276 (2020), 2/18/2020Rule 701 allows a non-expert to testify in the form of opinion or inference where it is rationally based on a perception of the witness and helpful to the determination of a fact in issue. Testimony from a lay witness and an officer about their suspicion that the defendant used an app to conceal text …
DNA
- State v. Carver, _ N.C. App. _ (April 20, 2021), 5/11/2021Defendant successfully appealed a murder conviction on a motion for appropriate relief by showing, with expert testimony, that SBI policies for interpreting mixture DNA evidence at the time were outdated and inaccurate based on current accepted practices. A new trial was awarded.
- State v. Phillips, __ N.C. App. __, __ S.E.2d __ (Dec. 3, 2019), 12/3/2019New trial ordered where State Crime Lab forensic scientist was required to testify about DNA sample despite her insistence that the testimony was not scientifically valid. Court of Appeals found that the testimony was expert opinion testimony and did not satisfy prongs 1 or 2 of Rule 702 where the expert was asked to testify …
- State v. Phillips, 836 S.E.2d 866 (2019), 12/3/2019The prosecutor had a DNA analyst testify about an inconclusive mixture. Such testimony was not “based on sufficient facts or data” nor “the product of reliable principles and methods.” Erroneous admission of expert testimony regarding DNA evidence recovered from minor victim was prejudicial in statutory rape prosecution.
- Supreme Court Upholds Taking DNA Upon Arrest, 6/4/2013UNC School of Government blog post by Jeff Welty on the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King which allows the taking of DNA from arrestees.
- United States v. Gissantaner, 417 F. Supp. 3d 857 (2019), 10/30/2019Successful Daubert challenge to the admissibility of STRMix genotyping software due to the complexity of the DNA mixture in the case at hand. The defendant’s Daubert motion and the ruling are linked in this article.
Drug Analysis
- False Positives Equal False Justice, 4/15/2008A California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) report by John Kelly. The report is largely based on the research of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst who tested field drug test kits and exposed and documented that they render false positives with legal substances. The report focuses on the Duquenois-Levine and KN Reagent tests used to test for …
- State v. Hewitt, 836 S.E.2d 786 (2019)(unpub), 1/7/2020The court held that it was not plain error for the analyst to testify to the identity of a controlled substance without explaining what type of chemical analysis she performed. She testified she performed a color test and an instrumental analysis.
- State v. Hills (N.C. Ct. App. 2021), 7/8/2021
- State v. Jackson, _ N.C. App. _ (April 20, 2021), 5/11/2021Evidence that cocaine was the identity of the substance was admissible not withstanding the substance being handled with bare hands and stored in a glove box where cocaine had previously been stored. The court found concerns over cross contamination went to the evidence’s weight, not matters of admissibility and authentication.
- State v. Sasek, 844 S.E.2d 328 (2020), 5/19/2020The court held that it was not plain error for the analyst to testify that GCMS testing is used to confirm results of presumptive testing but not to testify that GCMS was performed in the case at hand.
- State v. Ward 364 N.C. 133 (2010), 6/17/2010A NC Supreme Court decision finding the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State’s expert to visually identify drugs using an insufficiently established method. The court found the expert’s use of information in Micromedex literature to make drug identification did not meet the first prong of Rule 702 as it was never established …
- Sufficiency vs. Admissibility: Drug I.D. after State v. Osborne, 9/17/2019In 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.
- Weighing Marijuana Reference, 4/15/2019This 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 …
- What’s In a (Trade) Name?, 7/7/2015Today, 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 …
Drug Recognition Experts
- Burton v. Kentucky, 300 S.W.3d 126 (Ky. 2009), 1/1/2009Testimony from a DRE was improper where the DRE did not personally observe the defendant but instead based his opinion on review of records.
- State of Maryland v. Charles David Brightful, et al, No. K-10-04-259, Circuit Court for Carroll County, MD March 5, 2012, 3/5/2012The Circuit Court for Carroll County, Maryland held that DRE evidence should be excluded. The court held that identification and classification by DREs “is not generally accepted as valid and reliable in the relevant scientific community.” See the opinion for a summary of expert testimony regarding DRE examinations which raises questions about the accuracy of …
- State v. Sasek, 5/22/2020On May 19th, 2020 the North Carolina Court of Appeals released its opinion in the case of State v. Sasek. Mr. Sasek was convicted in March of 2019 of possession with intent to sell or deliver a schedule II controlled substance and sale of methamphetamine, which led to the revocation of his probation. Defense counsel …
Experts
- State v. Cobb, 845 S.E.2d 870 (2020), 6/16/2020The court held that it was error to admit results of field tests, for the drugs only; but it was not prejudicial.
- State v. Denton, COA18-742 (2019), 6/4/2019Felony 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 …
- State v. Sasek, 5/22/2020On May 19th, 2020 the North Carolina Court of Appeals released its opinion in the case of State v. Sasek. Mr. Sasek was convicted in March of 2019 of possession with intent to sell or deliver a schedule II controlled substance and sale of methamphetamine, which led to the revocation of his probation. Defense counsel …
Eyewitness ID
- Long v. Hooks, 9/6/20204th Circuit en banc rehearing, decided Aug. 24, 2020. See Judge Wynn’s concurring opinion regarding eyewitness identification evidence.
- State v. Boozer, 210 N.C. App. 371 (2011), 3/15/2011NC Court of Appeals found the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress asserting that an eyewitness’s pretrial identification was unduly suggestive and found no violation of the EIRA where the eyewitness identified the defendant by looking through the pages of The Slammer newspaper.
- State v. Cotton, 4/22/2019Ronald 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 …
- State v. Lawson, 352 Ore. 724 (2012), 11/29/2012On Nov. 29, 2012, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an important decision, which places the burden on the state to establish the reliability of the eyewitness identification and recognizes and requires courts to act in a manner consistent with the latest scientific research on eyewitness identification and memory. This opinion may be useful in NC …
- State v. Lee, 154 N.C. App. 410, 417 (2002), 1/1/2002Expert testimony on eyewitness identification has been excluded in several cases, so counsel should be prepared for a challenge to its admissibility. Trial courts will weigh whether the proposed testimony is case specific and has probative value, and will consider such factors as whether the expert interviewed the eyewitnesses, visited the crime scene and observed …
- State v. Newsuan, 837 S.E.2d 728 (2020)(unpub), 2/18/2020The court held that it was not plain error for a detective to testify as a lay witness that the defendant was displaying gang signs with his hands.
- State v. Rawls, 700 S.E.2d 112 (2010), 1/1/2010In State v. Rawls, 700 S.E.2d 112 (2010), the Court of Appeals held that “show-ups” are distinct from line-ups, and, therefore, are not subject to the guidelines set out in EIRA. Rather, the court applied the North Carolina common law test for determining if the show-up was proper which is a two-step inquiry described above: (1) …
- State v. Rogers, 355 N.C. 420, 432 (2002), 4/23/2019The 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 …
- U.S. v. Nolan (2020), 4/26/2020In this Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals case, Judge Jed Rakoff finds ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to challenge the unreliable eyewitness identification evidence in the case. Counsel failed to consult with an expert, abandoned a pre-trial motion to preclude the eyewitness identification evidence, and failed to move to exclude a prejudicial photo …
Fingerprints
- Brandon Mayfield Case, 5/1/2004In May 2004, the FBI arrested Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield based on an erroneous fingerprint identification. FBI analysts incorrectly identified a fingerprint left inside a plastic bag related to the Madrid train bombing as matching Mr. Mayfield.
- George Allen case, 11/1/2012Mr. Allen’s 1983 rape and murder conviction in MO was reversed in Nov. 2012, though the state is appealing the reversal. In this case, it was discovered that there are seven usable fingerprints from the crime scene that do not match anyone involved, though police testified at trial that the fingerprints matched the victim, the …
- Lana Canen case, 11/23/2012Ms. Canen’s 2005 murder conviction in IN was overturned in Nov. 2012 after she spent eight years in prison. A fingerprint that was a crucial piece of evidence in the prosecution’s case against her was found not to be hers. An Arizona fingerprint expert discovered that a sheriff’s detective misidentified a fingerprint found on a …
- Shirley McKie case, 1/1/1999In 1997, Scottish police constable Shirley McKie’s fingerprints were found at a crime scene that her department was investigating. After denying that she had ever been to the crime scene, she was found guilty of perjury and her reputation was ruined. It was determined in 1999 that the fingerprints were not hers and she was …
- State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 491-492 (1977), 4/24/2019In 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 …
- State v. Koiyan, 841 S.E.2d 351 (2020), 4/15/2020The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the state’s fingerprint examiner where the expert failed to show he applied reliably applied the relevant methods and principles to the case, in violation of N.C. Evid. Rule 702(a)(3). Because the defendant failed to object at trial, the issue was reviewed …
- State v. McPhaul, 256 N.C. App. 303 (2017), 11/7/2017The 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 …
- Willie Grimes case, 1/1/2011A three-judge panel in NC decided Mr. Grimes was innocent of a 1987 rape conviction for which he had served more than 24 years. Fingerprints from the crime scene did not match Grimes, but the State withheld that evidence until the trial. In 2011, the prints were uploaded into the Automated Fingerprint Identification System and …
Firearms
- Missouri v. Goodwin-Bey, No. 1531-CR00555-01 (Cir. Ct. Green County, Mo., Dec. 16, 2016)., 1/2/2021The 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.
- People v. Ross, 68 Misc. 3d 899 (2020)., 6/25/2021Decision on a Frye Motion requesting that the court preclude all ballistic expert testimony comparing shell casings from the crime scene to a gun found in one of the defendants’ car. The court concluded that an expert cannot offer opinions that are not supported by the relevant scientific community. Testimony by an expert that is …
- State of NY v. Mansell and Ross (2020), 4/27/2020Decision on Frye Motion making a finding that the relevant scientific community consists of the fields of forensic science, scientific methodology in studies and statistics, and psychology. The court ruled that the examiner may testify about class characteristics, but may not offer qualitative opinions on matters not adequately supported by the relevant scientific community, including …
- State v. Turner, 849 S.E.2d 327 (2020), 10/6/2020A SCL analyst performed an experiment measuring the direction and distance that shell casings traveled when a gun was fired at various angles and testified to the results, offering opinions about location of the shooter. On appeal, counsel argued that the tests were not “substantially similar.” The COA held that Rule 702 governs admission of …
- U.S. v. Willock, 696 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md., 2010)., 12/2/2020The court ruled that toolmark evidence is relevant, helpful, and reliable if offered by a qualified examiner who followed the AFTE theory. Id. at 569-570. There should be documentation (photographs, notes, etc.) of the conclusions reached to allow confirmation by a second qualified examiner on how an identification was reached. Id. This documentation should also …
- United States v. Adams, 444 F. Supp.3d 1248 (D. Or. 2020)., 6/25/2021After applying Daubert, the court concluded that the expert testimony in the case should be limited because the conclusions were not supported by a quantifiable or replicable scientific process.
- United States v. Alls, No. 2:08-cr-00223-ALM (S.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2009)., 12/26/2020Defendant 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. Glynn, 578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)., 12/27/2020The 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. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104., 12/12/2020The Court holds that it will allow ballistics testimony with limitations. The expert testimony can include things such as the methodology and the fact that a match was found, but the expert cannot make claims of certainty that the match excludes all other possible firearms in the world. Id. at 124.
- United States v. Love, No. 2:09-cr-20317-JPM (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2011)., 12/26/2020Although 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. Taylor, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D.N.M. 2009)., 12/27/2020The 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. Tibbs, 2016-CF1-19431., 1/2/2021After 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.
- Williams v. United States, 130 A.3d 343 (D.C. 2016)., 1/2/2021The 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 …
Measurement Uncertainty
- People v. Jabrocki, 5/6/201179th District Court for the County of Mason, Michigan – May 6, 2011 opinion holding that “calculation of an uncertainty budget or error rate and the reporting of the same is an essential element of the scientific methodology for analyzing blood alcohol content using gas chromatography” and denying the prosecution’s Motion to Admit the blood …
Mental Health
- State v. Echols, 845 S.E.2d 208 (2020) (unpub), 8/4/2020Dr. Wilkie Wilson’s testimony on decedent’s behavior being consistent with methamphetamine intoxication violated Rule 702(a)(1), where he had not examined the decedent and based his opinion on witness statements and a medical report from 2014.
- The Defenses of Voluntary Intoxication, Diminished Capacity, and Unconsciousness, 5/8/2008For the 2008 Public Defender Spring Conference, Lisa Miles surveys 186 cases in which the court found evidence sufficient or not sufficient to warrant an instruction on voluntary intoxication, diminished capacity, or unconsciousness.
Toxicology
- State v. Echols, 845 S.E.2d 208 (2020) (unpub), 8/4/2020Dr. Wilkie Wilson’s testimony on decedent’s behavior being consistent with methamphetamine intoxication violated Rule 702(a)(1), where he had not examined the decedent and based his opinion on witness statements and a medical report from 2014.
- State v. Pabon, 850 S.E.2d 512 (2020), 10/6/2020A SCL analyst testified to the results of another analyst’s testing. However, he personally reviewed the data and offered his own opinion, which the court held did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Trace Evidence
- State v. Bridges, No. 90 CRS23102-04, 2015 WL 12670468 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2015)., 11/6/2020In North Carolina, Timothy Scott Bridges was serving life for the rape of an 83-year old woman in Charlotte, in May of 1990. The evidence used at trial was microscopy hair evidence. He was convicted by a jury in Mecklenburg County for the charges of first-degree rape, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to …
- Tribble v. U.S., 447 A.2d 766 (D.C. 1982)., 11/6/2020Santae A. Tribble was convicted of killing a taxi driver in 1978. He spent 28 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. Key evidence at his trial came from separate FBI experts who testified that their scientific analysis proved with near certainty that Tribble’s hair was at the crime scene. However, …