A new study claims to have one potential solution to the problems surrounding these evidentiary bombshells which are consistently unreliable, yet so commonly used in securing a conviction.

“Sequential Double-Blind” is the procedure de jour. Instead of the investigating officer showing a selection of 6 pictures to the witness, an officer with no knowledge of the case should show the witness the images one at a time. The benefits, according to the study, include the elimination of subtle, if unintentional hints from the officer as well as the witnesses focusing more on what they remember, rather than trying to compare the photos and selecting the best of the bunch.

The study claims that incorrect identification of the “filler” pictures dropped from 18 percent to 12 percent when testing traditional “simultaneous” lineups with the “sequential double-blind.”

Even so, many law enforcement agencies are resistant to modification of their “tried and true” procedures – even though those methods have come under more and more criticism like that from the New Jersey Supreme Court. And the criticism is rightfully placed:

The fallibility of eyewitness identification is well known; 75 percent of the more than 250 convictions overturned based on DNA evidence involved mistaken identifications.

John Schwartz – The New York Post

Over the past three decades, there have been a sharp increase in the number of prisoners sentenced to life without parole, more than tripling since 1992. In many cases, these sentences were an alternative to the death penalty in a capital murder trial. In many other cases, the crimes were not homicide, but rather related to offenses such as drugs, sex crimes, robbery, kidnapping, and theft. Some states enforce a “three strikes” rule, and defendants can receive life without parole for seemingly petty crimes that may not even result in incarceration for a first offender.

Many now wonder if Life Without Parole has become overused and misused. So many inmates are serving life sentences and will never have even a chance at parole, when many defendants convicted of homicide crimes often receive much shorter sentences and the opportunity for parole.

A recent parenting blog at the Washington Post focuses on offender registries and questions whether or not they serve their intended purpose. The post highlights a book entitled Sex Panic and the Punitive State which looks at registration requirement forced upon people convicted of sex offense crimes. The blog features an interesting interview with the book’s author Roger N. Lancaster, a cultural studies professor at George Mason University. Lancaster discusses some of the problems and misconceptions surrounding sex offender registries.

Q. In terms of fairness, why should we be concerned that punishments for child sex offenders are harsh? Aren’t these criminals the worst of the worst?

Lancaster: … In practice, it is not only the “worst of the worst” who’ve been swept up and entangled in sex offender laws. Some of the registrants had consensual relations with near-adults. Others appear to have been falsely accused and accepted a plea bargain. Some were themselves minors who had consensual sex with their girlfriends or boyfriends. A random sample of one state’s listings shows that two-thirds of the registrants were convicted of non-violent first offenses — and their crimes may have involved no physical contact…

A Judge in Montgomery County has ruled that the speed cameras located throughout College Park are accurate, and a defendant wanting to challenge the machines must present expert testimony.

Resident Will Foreman, whose company has received over 60 citations argued that the photos do not accurate depict a speeding motor vehicle. However, the company that manages the cameras, Optotraffic, testified that the photo is only used to prove that the charged vehicle was present at the time that a speed infraction was recorded by the radar. Assuming that the machines are functioning correctly, a car traveling more than 12 mph over the posted speed limit will trigger the camera, which snaps a photo only to document which car was speeding.

A defendant’s only avenue of defense, according to the Court, is to put on expert testimony that the machine that tracks the speed was not functioning properly at the time the infraction was detected.

Watch your speed out there!

Stuart J. Rabner, the court’s chief justice, wrote [that] the test for reliability of eyewitness testimony, as set out by the United States Supreme Court 34 years ago, should be revised.

Via The New York Times

The Court’s decision was based in part on the immense academic work that has been produced in recent years that studied the reliability of such identifications.

There is no bright line rule for a Court to consider, but rather multiple factors – all that look to the nature of the crime, the ability of the witness to remember details, and the events and situations surrounding both the witnessed incident and the subsequent identification.

This decision sets the national stage for an upcoming case in the Supreme Court of the united States, which will hear its first eyewitness case in over three decades. Many innocent people are convicted because of the overwhelming impact of eyewitness identifications have on jurors. This new trend of reevaluating the procedure is long over due.

Q: How long do you believe there has been a problem with the Intoxilyzer, and what made people look into it?

A:The suspicion started a long time ago. The more air you blow into the machine, the higher the alcohol rate it registers…The other thing is is this machine uses a control. [It] knows what the control [solution level] is and it still isn’t measuring it right…It may be acceptable to the state, but if you are a defendant, it’s not so cool.

Ryan Pacyga via The New York Times

Thousands of defendants across the country face convictions, or have already been convicted, based on results from faulty machines. Often, the law enforcement is aware that the machines are faulty yet the machines are used to prosecute DWI and DUI crimes. With challenges like this, and the on going battles in the District of Columbia, defendants stand a better chance at a fair trial, and law enforcement will finally be tasked with developing new, more accurate means of identifying drunk drivers, rather than relying on inaccurate, antiquated devices that continue to plague our justice system.

The suspect had been asked to come to the police station. He was taken into a room with two detectives. The detectives told the suspect that he was not under arrest, but placed him on the far side of the room, away from a closed door. The police never informed the suspect of his Miranda Rights. Eventually, the suspect confessed to committing sexual acts against his daughter, and was arrested.

The problem, according to Judge Johnson, is that the suspect was not explicitly informed that he was free to get up and terminate the conversation at any time, and that, once he began going down the path of confessing to a crime, the police did not stop and inform him of his Miranda Rights.

I don’t think any lawyer in this room belives that a person can go in a police station and confess to a violent crime and say “I’ll see you later.” That just isn’t going to happen.
- Eric M. Johnson

This decision by Judge Johnson is to be applauded. Normal citizens do not go into a police station believing that they can just get up and leave. Police stations are intimidating and a person’s will can easily be overcome, even when police are acting politely.

via The Washington Post »

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kagan, and Sotomayor. The dissent, written by Justice Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito and Breyer.

The Bullcoming decision comes from the Crawford and Melendez-Diaz line of cases that deal with “testimonial” evidence.

The issue is what rights a criminal defendant has under the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment of the Constitution i.e., “the right to be confronted with the witness against him.” The Crawford line of cases has held that lab reports are testimonial evidence, and accordingly, a lab technician must be in court to testify as to the results.

The Supreme Court ruled in Bullcoming that the Defendant’s constitutional rights were not honored when the prosecutors failed to call the analyst responsible for creating a blood-alcohol level report, but instead called a colleague who neither observed nor reviewed the results.

The Sixth Amendment does not tolerate dispensing with confrontation simply because a court believes that questioning one witness about another’s testimonial statements provides a fair enough opporunity for cross examination.

∼ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for the Majority

Read more coverage on the decision at
The New York Times »
The Washington Post »

Photo Credit: The Washington Post

The guys at FroZenYo not only have a great product, but are giving back to the community by hiring young people from the neighborhoods they serve.

Read the full story at The Washington Post »

Now D.C. officials are expecting to roll out the program by the summer of 2012.

The District, like the other states with a medical marijuana law, have paid great attention to “The Justice Department Memo”. The memo offers no clear guidance to states wanting to protect its citizens, and its businesses.

…prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law… is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department.

The Justice Department further alludes that state licensed dispensaries may be used to conceal illicit drug trafficking efforts, and a claim of compliance with state laws should not deter federal law enforcement officials.

D.C. officials are hopeful that they will be able to implement a program wherein the dispensaries that are critical to the program will be able to function legally, and without federal interference. There will be as many as 10 dispensaries under the D.C. law.

Read the full story at The Washington Post »