Williams v. Illinois and Forensic Evidence – The Bleeding Edge of Crawford

The application of Crawford principles in the context of forensic evidence continues to plague the criminal justice system. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Illinois raises more questions than it answers about when and how an expert may testify to conclusions based upon the opinions or work of other (non-testifying) experts or technicians. This article reviews the relevant case law, and explores how trial prosecutors can present a case involving forensic testing conducted by a multitude of technicians and experts. It also addresses Williams’ impact on cold cases, in which original experts who performed autopsies and other forensic examinations and testing are no longer available for trial. The author provides practical suggestions to trial prosecutors who must balance limited resources against the need to secure convictions that will withstand confrontation challenges on appeal.

Williams-v-Illinois-and-Forensic-Evidence-The-Bleeding-Edge-of-Crawford-Issue-11

Prosecuting Image Exploitation

Image exploitation involves the non-consensual creation, possession, or distribution of an image or images depicting victims engaged in consensual sexual activity or being sexually assaulted. As technology continues to evolve more quickly than the law, image exploitation crimes are being addressed by a patchwork of criminal laws. This Strategies Newsletter gives prosecutors insight on how to respond to this complex crime and to hold offenders accountable under imperfect or untested laws. The article explores the various forms of image exploitation and the types of statutes under which this abuse can be prosecuted.

Image-Exploitation-Strategies15

Pennsylvania’s New Victim Behavior Expert Testimony Statute Upheld: Commonwealth v. Olivo

On November 18, 2015, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Olivo, upholding, against state constitutional attack, the new Pennsylvania evidentiary statute permitting expert testimony to explain victim behavior in the prosecution of crimes of sexual violence. Previously, the courts of Pennsylvania had steadfastly resisted admission of such testimony, despite the widespread acceptance of such evidence by other courts across the country. This article reviews the facts of the case and discusses its implications for highlighting the important role of expert testimony in aiding juries to reach just verdicts, unhindered by myths and misconceptions about how “real” victims would behave. Pennsylvanias-New-Victim-Behavior-Expert-Testimony-Statute-Upheld-Commonwealth-v.-Olivo-SIB25

 

The Prosecutors’ Resource on Crawford and its Progeny

There are many barriers to victims’ participation in the prosecution of their abusers. When prosecuting a domestic violence case with a non-participating victim (one who either is not in court, or who is in court but is unavailable by reason of refusal to testify, exercise of a privilege, illness, or incompetency) the prosecutor must anticipate a challenge under Crawford v. Washington to the introduction of the victim’s out-of-court statements. Crawford and its progeny are landmark cases that address the admissibility of out-of-court statements in light of an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. This Resource focuses on interpretations of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause under Crawford. The prosecutor must be aware, however, of the simultaneous need to satisfy state evidence rules concerning hearsay. This paper places Crawford in its historical context, presents a framework for analyzing admissibility of out-of-court statements under the Crawford rules, and provides resources, sample questions, and strategy suggestions to assist the prosecutor in satisfying the confrontation requirements under the Sixth Amendment.

The_Prosecutors_Resource_Crawford

Ohio v. Clark: A Bit of Confrontation Clarification, A Few Tantalizing Hints

The United States Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. Clark has been heralded by many prosecutors and legal scholars as significantly broadening the admissibility of evidence under the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted by Crawford v. Washington and its progeny. The decision does not break startling new ground, however; rather, the Court’s decision is one that flows more or less naturally from the Court’s previous pronouncements about what it is that makes a hearsay statement testimonial, and therefore inadmissible at trial unless the witness is subject to cross-examination, either at trial or (in the case of a witness unavailable for trial) at a prior proceeding. This article reviews the opinion’s direction and guidance to trial courts (and prosecutors) about the admissibility of statements made to individuals not affiliated with law enforcement, as well as statements made by children or others who may be limited in their ability to grasp the notion of potential future prosecution. The article discusses the importance of the opinion’s deviation from the language used in previous decisions—a distinction that promises to fuel the ongoing debate about the future of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.

Ohio-v.-Clark-A-Bit-of-Confrontation-Clarification-A-Few-Tantalizing-Hints-SIB30

Federal Firearms Prohibition Extends to Persons Convicted of Reckless Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence: Voisine v. United States

The United States Supreme Court has held that the federal firearms prohibition for individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence applies even to convictions having recklessness as an element of the offense. In Voisine v. United States, the Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the prohibition was inapplicable where the predicate offense could have been based upon a finding of reckless conduct, as opposed to purposeful/intentional or knowing conduct. This article outlines how the Voisine decision has definitively settled the question of whether convictions under statutes that include the reckless infliction of injury qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence for purposes of the federal firearms prohibition. It also provides suggestions for prosecutors about how to best leverage this decision in domestic violence cases in ways that keep victims—and communities—safe.

Federal-Firearms-Prohibition-Extends-to-Persons-Convicted-of-Reckless-Misdemeanor-Crimes-of-DV-Voisine-v.-US

Evidence of Other “Bad Acts” in Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Human Trafficking Prosecutions

In proving a case of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, stalking, or human trafficking, it is often crucial to introduce evidence that the defendant has committed some other crime or bad act—usually before or after the charged crime. Such evidence is often viewed with caution by trial and appellate courts, because of the perceived risk that juries will convict the defendant based upon evidence that they committed some crime other than the one charged or that the defendant is a bad person and therefore probably guilty of the charged crime. Prosecutors should file pretrial motions in limine any time they anticipate introducing evidence of a defendant’s crimes or other bad acts, regardless of whether such a motion is required by law. It is important to identify, and to argue, any potentially applicable grounds for admission. This article describes the theories under which evidence of other bad acts might be admissible, depending on the law of the jurisdiction, gives examples, and offers further resources to help prosecutors overcome specific objections.

update

The ABCs of BAC: Toxicology for Prosecutors and Investigators

Alcohol’s unique toxicological effects, widespread use, and ease of access render it the ideal substance to facilitate sexual assault. The same factors that make alcohol such a perfect weapon also present unique challenges for investigators, prosecutors, and other allied professionals in alcohol-facilitated sexual assault (AFSA) cases. An understanding of basic toxicology principles is critical for investigators and prosecutors handling these challenging cases from investigation through sentencing to be able to hold offenders accountable for their criminal behavior. This webinar explains the toxicology of alcohol, as well as drugs, in lay terms that will help you understand how alcohol affects the body. Topics include alcohol metabolism, the disproportionate effect of alcohol on women and men, the mechanism of intoxication, an explanation of blackouts vs. pass outs, and other common toxicological issues. It also explores common issues and challenges related to the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases where alcohol is present.

This webinar recording should qualify prosecutors for 1 hour of continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact their state bar association in reference to application requirements and related fees.

Williams v. Illinois and Forensic Evidence: The Bleeding Edge of Crawford

The application of Crawford principles in the context of forensic evidence continues to plague the criminal justice system. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Illinois raises more questions than it answers about when and how an expert may testify to conclusions based upon the opinions or work of other (non-testifying) experts or technicians. This webinar reviews the relevant case law, and explores how trial prosecutors can present a case involving forensic testing conducted by a multitude of technicians and experts. It also addresses Williams’s impact on cold cases, in which original experts who performed autopsies and other forensic examinations and testing are no longer available for trial. The presenter provides practical suggestions to trial prosecutors who must balance limited resources against the need to secure convictions that will withstand confrontation challenges on appeal.

This webinar recording should qualify prosecutors for 1.5 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact their state bar association in reference to application requirements and related fees.

Stop Calling It ‘Revenge Porn’: Prosecuting Image Exploitation

Image exploitation involves the nonconsensual creation, possession, or distribution of an image or images depicting victims engaged in consensual sexual activity or being sexually assaulted. As technology continues to evolve more quickly than the law, image exploitation crimes are being addressed by a patchwork of criminal laws. We as prosecutors must continue to respond to this complex crime and to hold offenders accountable under imperfect or untested laws. This webinar explores the various forms of image exploitation and the types of statutes under which this abuse can be prosecuted, enabling prosecutors to choose the most advantageous charging strategies within their own jurisdictions. In addition, the presenter offers offender-trial strategies are offered to assist in overcoming common victim-blaming defenses.

This webinar recording should qualify prosecutors for 1 hour of continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact their state bar association in reference to application requirements and related fees.