1 / 39

WAKING THE GATEKEEPER: ATTACKING THE STATE’S EXPERT WITNESSES

WAKING THE GATEKEEPER: ATTACKING THE STATE’S EXPERT WITNESSES. THE ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY 2011 Training Conference Girdwood, Alaska James K. Jenkins Maloy Jenkins Parker Boulder, Colorado & Atlanta, Georgia jenkins@mjplawyers.com. WHY WAKING THE GATEKEEPER MATTERS.

chip
Download Presentation

WAKING THE GATEKEEPER: ATTACKING THE STATE’S EXPERT WITNESSES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WAKING THE GATEKEEPER:ATTACKING THE STATE’S EXPERT WITNESSES THE ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY 2011 Training Conference Girdwood, Alaska James K. Jenkins Maloy Jenkins Parker Boulder, Colorado & Atlanta, Georgia jenkins@mjplawyers.com

  2. WHY WAKING THE GATEKEEPER MATTERS

  3. EXPERT WITNESSES CONVICT OUR CLIENTS

  4. JUNK SCIENCE MURDERS INNOCENT PEOPLE

  5. THE WILLINGHAMS

  6. THE WILLINGHAM CHILDREN

  7. WILLINGHAM HOMEDECEMBER 23, 1991

  8. STATE DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALMANUEL VASQUEZ

  9. CO-STARRING WITNESS THE STATE JAMES GRIGSON, FORENSIC PSYCIATRIST: TODD WILLINGHAM WAS “AN EXTREMELY SEVERE SOCIOPATH” AND WAS “INCURABLE”

  10. TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRYDENIES CLEMANCY

  11. Todd WillinghamJanuary 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004

  12. Todd Willingham February 17, 2004 "I am an innocent man, convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do.”

  13. BARRY SCHECK GERRY GOLDSTEIN

  14. Criminal Procedure Rule 16(b)(1)(B) (B) Expert Witnesses. Unless a different date is set by the court, as soon as known and no later than 45 days prior to trial, the prosecutor shall inform the defendant of the names and addresses of any expert witnesses performing work in connection with the case or whom the prosecutor is likely to call at trial. The prosecutor shall also make available for inspection andcopying any reports or written statements of these experts. With respect to each expert whom the prosecution is likely to callat trial, the prosecutor shall also furnish to the defendant a curriculum vitae and a written description of the substance of the proposed testimony of the expert, the expert's opinion, and the underlying basis of that opinion.

  15. Failure to provide timely disclosure under this rule shall entitle the defendant to a continuance. If the court finds that a continuance is not an adequate remedy under the circumstances of the case, the court may impose other sanctions, including prohibiting the prosecutor from calling the expert at trial or declaring a mistrial.

  16. Nacchiov. United States,555 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2009) Mr. Nacchio argues that the district court's ruling waspremisedupon Rule 16 and that, consequently, it was patentlyerroneous. We disagree. The district court's exclusion ofProfessorFischel's testimony rested on Daubertgrounds.True, the government first framed its challenge to ProfessorFischel'sexpert testimony as an objection to the sufficiencyofMr. Nacchio's Rule 16 disclosure. But, by the time the district court ruled to exclude Professor Fischel's testimony, it was clear that the court's principal concern was Daubert

  17. MESSAGE FROM AN APPELLATE LAWYER TO ALL YOU AWESOME TRIAL LAWYERS OUT THERE: MAKE A FUCKING OFFER OF PROOF

  18. INVESTIGATE THE STATE’S EXPERT WITNESS Awesome Website: containing hundreds of transcripts of testimony by forensicexperts where defendant was subsequently exonerated by DNA: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/librarysite/garrett_exoneree.htm

  19. AWESOME WEBSITE FOR TRANSCRIPTS http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/librarysite/garrett_exoneree.htm

  20. United States v. Robinson, 44 F.Supp. 1345 (N.D.Ga. 1997) “If a defendant does not have the basis for the expert’s opinion, there is no way the defendant can effectively cross-examine the expert. It is this issue which goes to thfairness of the trial that the court must always keep in mind in dealing with discovery issues in criminal cases.”

  21. Ratliff v. State, 110 P.2d 982, 985(Alaska App. 2005) Indeed, at the conclusion of Hammer's testimony, when Judge Weeks asked Ratliff's attorney if she had any argument to present regarding the scientific validity (or lack of validity) of Hammer's analysis, the defense attorney had nothing to say. She simply responded, “Your Honor, as far as whether the general techniques [of shoeprint analysis] are acceptable or not, I will just let the Court rule on that.”

  22. Dymenstein v. State, 720 P.2d 42, 45(Alaska Appeals 1986) Dymenstein also argues that Kirk should not have been allowed to offer her opinion concerning N.C.'s credibility. Kirk did give her opinion of N.C.'s credibility numerous times during the sentencing hearing, attempting to explain N.C.’s inconsistent statements and why N.C. took so long to admit all of the sexual abuse she had suffered. She explained that N.C.'s prior statements were consistent with the theory of “progressive admissions.” Dymenstein, however, failed to object to Kirk's opinion of N.C.'s credibility the first time itwaselicited. He objected only once: the second time Kirk said she believed N.C. Later, Dymenstein elicited Kirk's opinion twice again on cross-examination, yet he failed to object to the testimony or to request that it be stricken or disregarded.

  23. WHY IT IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THE STATE’S EXPERTS A similar situation was presented to this court in Colganv. State, 711 P.2d 533, 534–35 (Alaska App.1985). There, the same counselor testified that she believed the complainants: children who said they had been sexually assaulted by the defendant. In Colgan, as in the present case, no timely objection was made. This court analyzed the issue under the plain error rule, Criminal Rule 47(b). We found that, even if inadmissible, the testimony did not substantially prejudice Colgan'srights …

  24. It’s an uphill struggle, folks: [However, a]n analysis of post‑Daubertdecisions demonstrates thatwhereascivil defendants prevail in their Daubertchallenges, most of thetimecriminal defendants almost always lose their challenges to government proffers. But when the prosecutor challenges a criminal defendant’s expert evidence, the evidence is almost always kept out of the trial. . . .In the first 7 years after Daubert, there were 67 reported federal appellate decisions reviewing defense challenges to prosecution experts. The government prevailed in all but 6, and even among the 6, only 1 resulted in the reversal of a conviction. In contrast, in the 54 cases in which the defense appealed a trial court ruling to exclude the defendant’s expert, the defendant lost in 44 cases. In 7 of the remaining 10, the case was remanded for a Dauberthearing.

  25. Model Fingerprint Cross-ExaminationJennifer FriedmanLos Angeles County Public Defender Background reading materials for cross-examination I. Education • Training • Accreditation • Certification V. L.A. Police Department Audit and Errors

  26. Fingerprint Basics • Work of Examiner • Contextual or Observer Bias • Bradford Mayfield Case • AFIS cases (computer matching) • NAS Report -- February 2009 • Subjectivity • This Print

  27. Documentation • IAI Resolution • Summary

  28. Art vs. Science InstructionUnited States v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027, 1050-51 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) The Court has studied the nature of the skill claimed by forensic documentexaminers, and finds it to be closer to a practical skill, such as piloting a vessel, than to a scientific skill, such as that which might be developed by a chemist or aphysicist. That is, although forensic document examiners may work in “laboratories,” and may rely on textbooks with titles like “The Scientific Examination of Documents,” forensic document examiners are not scientists – they are more like artisans, that is, skilled craftsmen.

  29. THE NAS REPORT National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences Congressional Funding Related to DNA Exonerations

  30. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS Other than DNA, nearly all forensic individualization “sciences” rest on inadequate scientific foundations.

  31. OBSERVER EFFECTS The tendency of the observer’s preconceptions and motives to influence perceptions and/or interpretation of evidence. Also known as: context effects; examiner bias; confirmation bias.

  32. “THE FAILURE TO ADDRESS OBSERVER EFFECTS IS THE HALLMARK OF JUNK SCIENCE.”

  33. JUNK SCIENCE CONVICTS INNOCENT CLIENTS THE BRADFORD MAYFIELD CASE

  34. “In March 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratories identified Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon attorney, as the source of a latent fingerprint recovered from a plastic bag containing explosive detonators found near the site of commuter train bombings in Madrid, Spain that killed 200 people and injured almost 1,400 others. Based primarily on the FBI laboratory’s conclusion, the FBI arrested Mayfield as a material witness in May 2004. Approximately 2 weeks after Mayfield’s arrest, the Spanish Police (SNP) informed the FBI that it had identified an Algerian national, OuhnawDoud, as the source of the latent fingerprint.

  35. The FBI subsequently examined Daoud’s fingerprints and withdrew its identification of Mayfield, and Mayfield was released from custody after being held for 14 days.The FBI issued a formal apology to Mayfield and his family.

More Related