The District of Columbia Office of Police Complaints just published new policy recommendations that would have police officers wear on-body cameras. You can find the policy recommendations here. As the Office of Police Complaints recommendations state, there was a study of the effects of the use of these cameras in Rialto, California. This study found that “the devices appeared to cut down on the number of incidents involving the use of force while also reducing the number of complaints filed against officers. Specifically, the Rialto study showed that the devices brought down the rate at which police force was used during interactions with citizens.”
This would seem to be a very positive development. I am curious about the civil-liberties groups that the policy recommendations document refer to that oppose this measure – one would think one of the most important civil liberties to be concerned about is the freedom from being beaten by the police and then being falsely charged with Assaulting a Police Officer (APO).
I have written before how in criminal drug prosecutions, the government analyst should be cross-examined and their case file and other information should be requested to prepare a defense case. A colleague sent me a great example of this effort paying off.
D-L Color Test of Three Suspected Marijuana Samples
A chemist at the DEA Mid-Atlantic Laboratory wrote in a report that three samples suspected to be marijuana turned purple in a Duquenois-Levine color test. The problem is that the picture of the test (not included in the report but in the analyst’s case-file) showed only one sample that might conceivably indicate the sample was marijuana (and even that one is weak). Continue reading
Posted in Criminal Law
Tagged DC, District of Columbia, Drug Cases, Evidence, Jury Trials, Maryland, Misdemeanors, Pre-trial, Scientific Evidence, Trial, Trials, Washington
Even though everyone in the DC government, from the DC Council to the prosecutors at the Office of the Attorney General, knows that alcohol in the urine has a “loose correlation” to intoxication, that urinalysis is unreliable, people are still regularly prosecuted and convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) base on their urine scores.
Back in June of 2011, DC Chief Toxicologist Lucas Zarwell of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, stated under oath to the DC Council that urine testing cannot reliably determine impairment or blood alcohol levels. In response to a question from council member Phil Mendelson, Mr. Zarwell testified as follows:
MENDELSON. How accurate is urine testing for measuring blood alcohol content?
ZARWELL. It’s not.
Posted in Criminal Law, DUI
Tagged DC, District of Columbia, DUI, DWI, Evidence, Jury Trials, OWI, Pre-trial, Scientific Evidence, Trial, Trials
To live up to its name, forensic science must conform to the scientific method, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.” The scientific method seeks above all to prove or disprove hypotheses through testing in order to determine whether a particular conclusion is reliable. If recent history has taught us anything, it’s that forensic science often falls short of this ideal. But we as criminal defense lawyers can’t expose these failings without better information on lab procedures. I have written about cross-examining drug experts here. Continue reading
I was in court just before the Christmas break, waiting for a chance to talk to the clerk, and I got to see part of a colleague’s misdemeanor marijuana possession trial. I was very disheartened to see that when it came time for the DEA chemist’s testimony, the defense lawyer did not challenge her qualifications, did not challenge the identification of the seized evidence as marijuana, and did not cross-examine the chemist at all, not even to have the chemist at least list the procedures performed, etc. Continue reading
Posted in Criminal Law
Tagged DC, District of Columbia, Drug Cases, Evidence, Felonies, Jury Trials, Misdemeanors, Pre-trial, Scientific Evidence, Trial, Witnesses
In criminal trials, a defendant is judged by people who weren’t there, didn’t see what happened, and usually have little experience with the type of crime involved. What jury could resist testimony from someone who can definitively say that the defendant was guilty of the crime because they committed the crime together? The accomplice can say: “I was there, I know all the details of what happened because I participated in the crime. I’m sorry. The defendant was there and did this too.” The problem is that such testimony could be a lie motivated by the prospect of a more lenient sentence. For that reason, in Maryland, as well as in many other states, convictions may not rest only on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Watson v. State, 117 A.2d 549, 552 (Md. 1955), [WARNING: the facts of some of these cases are quite gruesome, especially Watson]. In this post, I will explore what is called the accomplice corroboration rule as it has been applied in Maryland. I want to explore a bit about what corroboration is required, what is an accomplice, etc.. Continue reading