Customer Working Groups
Prosecutors, Police and Public Forensic Laboratories Working Together
Forensic evidence is an increasingly important part of a criminal case. As a result, it is critical for prosecutors and police to work closely with their public forensic laboratories to understand its procedures and the reliability of its tests. A Customer Working Group is an excellent way to achieve this goal.
Read MorePresident’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Recommends that Some Forensic Evidence Should Not Be Introduced in Federal Court
On September 19, 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a 174-page report titled “Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods”. Read
The PCAST Report does not bind any prosecutors or any courts, but it contains arguments that defense attorneys will use to exclude certain forensic evidence. These motions have already begun.
Read MoreProsecutor Seminars in Law Schools
Prosecutor-focused courses in law schools are an excellent way for prosecutors to expose law students to their work and to have students available to do research on prosecution issues. Statewide Best Practices Committees have benefited from working with their local law schools to develop classes that can focus on emerging issues and policy questions.
Read MoreCommunity Programs
One of the many benefits of being part of the Best Practices network is the ability to share information with prosecutors across the country about promising programs and how to implement them. Prosecutors’ Center for Excellence (PCE) held a two-day conference in Boston on July 19 and 20, 2016 with prosecutors from 17 states in attendance. One topic was how to create community programs on a shoe string.
Here is a sampling of the varied – and excellent – programs highlighted during the meeting:
Read MoreConsiderations for Assessing Jailhouse Informants
An often difficult decision faced by prosecutors is whether to use evidence provided by a so-called jailhouse informant. Individuals, when incarcerated, may let their guard down with other inmates and speak freely about the crime with which they have been charged. They may also (perhaps falsely) claim to have committed some heinous act simply in an effort to “impress” fellow inmates. At the same time, inmates facing other charges may try to barter with law enforcement, providing information allegedly learned from a fellow inmate in exchange for some benefit, such as a lesser sentence.
Read MoreApproaches to Reporting the Results of Investigations into Police Involved Fatalities
June 30, 2016 — Volume 15
There has been great scrutiny of police-involved fatalities and how they are handled by prosecutors. Here are four thoughtful approaches by prosecutors on how they have reported their findings when no criminal charges are brought (in alphabetical order by jurisdiction). Three articles on this subject are also included.
Read MoreRecording Interrogations – Support by Prosecutors
June 23, 2016 — Volume 14
Around the country, prosecutors have supported the recording of custodial interrogations and have pushed for the creation of voluntary policies and, in some instances, endorsed legislation. Police have embraced this technology as well. The Colorado Best Practices Committee issued a report providing a national perspective on the progress made in this area. Also included are sample policies and articles from other states that reflect prosecutor’s leadership in promoting the recording of interrogations. Much of this work was spearheaded by Best Practices Committees.
Read MoreNational Best Practices Meeting
May 19, 2016 — Volume 12
Boston – July 19 and July 20, 2016
BP Committees around the nation are spearheading exciting initiatives. Come to share ideas, get energized and enjoy each other’s company.
Read MoreJury Instructions v. Expert Testimony
New Study: Expanded Eyewitness Jury Instruction Makes Jurors Suspicious of Any Eyewitness — Even in Strong Cases
Defense attorneys are increasingly seeking expanded jury instructions on the reliability of eyewitnesses in lieu of calling a defense expert. A recent study in New Jersey has demonstrated that jurors who received these instructions “indiscriminately discounted ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ testimony in equal measure.”
Read More