Defense attorneys should not become overwhelmed by DNA evidence and believe they have no way to challenge the allegations. Counsel can demonstrate to jurors that other plausible explanations exist.

Due to the increased push for prosecutions in drug-related deaths, it is more important than ever for criminal justice system stakeholders to have access to accurate, standardized, and professional death investigation and death certification. Amy Hawes and Denise Martin share some of the common pitfalls in drug death investigations, discuss national recommendations for coroner and medical examiner investigations, and set forth the qualifications death investigation experts should possess.

The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals broke new ground in 2012 when it held the Fifth Amendment barred the government from compelling decryption of digital media purportedly containing encrypted, self-incriminating data. While the decision could sweep aside some of the best evidence prosecutors are accustomed to obtaining, the ground that decision breaks may prove to be less fertile than it first appears, especially because the Supreme Court has limited the Fifth Amendment rights available to many in white collar cases.

Jurors who enter a courtroom are familiar with DNA evidence and possess preconceived notions of the role this evidence plays in the criminal justice system. In fact, jurors are likely to think that if there is DNA evidence, then the defendant must be guilty of the crime. Instead of focusing solely on battling the scientific validity of the DNA evidence itself, the defense team should consider challenging the logical, inferential connections between the DNA evidence and a finding of guilt. The authors discuss a 2013 trial to illustrate this strategy.

The evidence appeared overwhelming. A late afternoon explosion and fire in a large garage packed with cars and boats, where county sheriffs, the Iowa State Fire Marshal’s Office, and Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) investigators determined there were “multiple areas of origin.” 

If an image of a perpetrator exists on a cellphone camera, video surveillance, body camera footage or social media, law enforcement can use facial recognition software to attempt to identify the person in the photo. Defense attorney Kaitlin Jackson discusses the limitations of facial recognition, and she explains how to determine if police used facial recognition in a defendant’s case. Facial recognition software is difficult to challenge, but ways exist to attack its reliability.

If defense attorneys train members of the defense team to conduct extensive research into an expert’s background, and if attorneys put effort into understanding the science involved in a case and the tests used to evaluate a client, they will be able to stand their ground and expose bad experts and false science. The client’s life may depend on it.

Although forensic DNA testing is well established, experts sometimes disagree about the interpretation and statistical characterization of test results. This article will describe the key controversies and will explain what lawyers need to know to recognize and deal with controversial types of DNA evidence.

NACDL is committed to alerting the defense bar to the errors made in statements by FBI examiners concerning microscopic hair analysis. It is crucial to identify cases and gather transcripts so that adversely affected defendants have an opportunity to complain and have the assistance of counsel.

The testimony and evidence from forensic experts often fall short of “science” as that term is understood in the broader scientific community.

Criminal defense lawyers should (1) increase their use of science and (2) protect the Fourth Amendment so that it does not become a meaningless ideal.

Lawyers must not be afraid to learn science.

Probabilistic genotyping software is used when DNA evidence is a mixture of contributions from several people, when only trace amounts are collected, or when the evidence has been degraded by elements such as sunlight, moisture, and bacteria. Scientists developed probabilistic genotyping software programs to analyze these complex mixtures. Are these software programs accurate? How can lawyers challenge the admissibility of the programs under Frye and Daubert standards? When should defense counsel bring an “as-applied” challenge?

When someone has been accused of causing the death of another person, what information should defense attorneys expect to see in an autopsy report? What is the role of a second autopsy? What are the concerns when an autopsy has been delayed? Forensic pathologists Evan Matshes and Sam Andrews answer these questions and discuss the lack of uniformity in autopsy reports.

Probabilistic genotyping (PG) is a new computer technology for interpreting complicated DNA profiles. It represents a paradigm shift in the way DNA profiles are interpreted and reported. Attorneys who have specialized in DNA cases by grappling with both molecular biology and statistics will now have to learn to talk about computer science, or at least ask questions about it. They must ask how PG was used in a defendant’s case, and they must make sure that the hypotheses and assumptions run through the PG program were appropriate.