Criminal Defense Wiki - User contributions [en]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-12T14:22:49Z

Kgerber: /* Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Perez-Amaya

'''Summary''':

*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings are connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Direct-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts the direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==

'''Case''': State of Maryland v. John Muhammed

'''Summary''': The State’s Attorney conducts direct examination of crime scene specialist Kimberly Clements. Whether a “crime scene specialist” is part of the department of forensic science or part of the police department varies. In the case, the crime scene specialist is not a sworn police officer. However, the prosecutor does not qualify her as an expert, instead asking her questions about her observations of a crime scene – just like any other fact witness. She conducts a thorough direct examination, laying out the evidence that was located at a crime scene from one of the beltway sniper shootings. Often, a crime scene witness such as this one is used by a prosecutor as a vehicle through which to introduce photographs, drawings, and other exhibits from a crime scene. Later, other witness will use those same exhibits to discuss more specific information. This kind of witness also forms part of the chain of custody of evidence. For example, she removed bullet fragments from the victim’s shirt. Her chain of custody testimony will be part of the series of witnesses that demonstrates to the jury that the bullet fragments eventually analyzed by an expert witness were indeed the ones from the crime scene.

Mr. Muhammed, acting without a lawyer, makes various logical points on cross examination.

*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]

==Direct-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Direct-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]], [[DNA]]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-12T13:19:49Z

Kgerber: /* Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''': U.S. v. Perez-Amaya

'''Summary''':

*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings are connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Direct-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts the direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==

'''Case''': State of Maryland v. John Muhammed

'''Summary''': The State’s Attorney conducts direct examination of crime scene specialist Kimberly Clements. Whether a “crime scene specialist” is part of the department of forensic science or part of the police department varies. In the case, the crime scene specialist is not a sworn police officer. However, the prosecutor does not qualify her as an expert, instead asking her questions about her observations of a crime scene – just like any other fact witness. She conducts a thorough direct examination, laying out the evidence that was located at a crime scene from one of the beltway sniper shootings. Often, a crime scene witness such as this one is used by a prosecutor as a vehicle through which to introduce photographs, drawings, and other exhibits from a crime scene. Later, other witness will use those same exhibits to discuss more specific information. This kind of witness also forms part of the chain of custody of evidence. For example, she removed bullet fragments from the victim’s shirt. Her chain of custody testimony will be part of the series of witnesses that demonstrates to the jury that the bullet fragments eventually analyzed by an expert witness were indeed the ones from the crime scene.

Mr. Muhammed, acting without a lawyer, makes various logical points on cross examination.

*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]

==Direct-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Direct-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]], [[DNA]]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-12T09:42:56Z

Kgerber: /* Direct-Examination of Gang Expert */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''':

'''Summary''':

*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings are connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Direct-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts the direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==

'''Case''': State of Maryland v. John Muhammed

'''Summary''': The State’s Attorney conducts direct examination of crime scene specialist Kimberly Clements. Whether a “crime scene specialist” is part of the department of forensic science or part of the police department varies. In the case, the crime scene specialist is not a sworn police officer. However, the prosecutor does not qualify her as an expert, instead asking her questions about her observations of a crime scene – just like any other fact witness. She conducts a thorough direct examination, laying out the evidence that was located at a crime scene from one of the beltway sniper shootings. Often, a crime scene witness such as this one is used by a prosecutor as a vehicle through which to introduce photographs, drawings, and other exhibits from a crime scene. Later, other witness will use those same exhibits to discuss more specific information. This kind of witness also forms part of the chain of custody of evidence. For example, she removed bullet fragments from the victim’s shirt. Her chain of custody testimony will be part of the series of witnesses that demonstrates to the jury that the bullet fragments eventually analyzed by an expert witness were indeed the ones from the crime scene.

Mr. Muhammed, acting without a lawyer, makes various logical points on cross examination.

*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]

==Direct-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Direct-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]], [[DNA]]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-12T09:15:29Z

Kgerber: /* Cross-Examination of Gang Expert */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''':

'''Summary''':

*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings are connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Direct-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts the direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==

'''Case''': State of Maryland v. John Muhammed

'''Summary''': The State’s Attorney conducts direct examination of crime scene specialist Kimberly Clements. Whether a “crime scene specialist” is part of the department of forensic science or part of the police department varies. In the case, the crime scene specialist is not a sworn police officer. However, the prosecutor does not qualify her as an expert, instead asking her questions about her observations of a crime scene – just like any other fact witness. She conducts a thorough direct examination, laying out the evidence that was located at a crime scene from one of the beltway sniper shootings. Often, a crime scene witness such as this one is used by a prosecutor as a vehicle through which to introduce photographs, drawings, and other exhibits from a crime scene. Later, other witness will use those same exhibits to discuss more specific information. This kind of witness also forms part of the chain of custody of evidence. For example, she removed bullet fragments from the victim’s shirt. Her chain of custody testimony will be part of the series of witnesses that demonstrates to the jury that the bullet fragments eventually analyzed by an expert witness were indeed the ones from the crime scene.

Mr. Muhammed, acting without a lawyer, makes various logical points on cross examination.

*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]

==Direct-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]], [[DNA]]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-12T09:03:23Z

Kgerber: /* Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''':

'''Summary''':

*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings are connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Direct-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts the direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==

'''Case''': State of Maryland v. John Muhammed

'''Summary''': The State’s Attorney conducts direct examination of crime scene specialist Kimberly Clements. Whether a “crime scene specialist” is part of the department of forensic science or part of the police department varies. In the case, the crime scene specialist is not a sworn police officer. However, the prosecutor does not qualify her as an expert, instead asking her questions about her observations of a crime scene – just like any other fact witness. She conducts a thorough direct examination, laying out the evidence that was located at a crime scene from one of the beltway sniper shootings. Often, a crime scene witness such as this one is used by a prosecutor as a vehicle through which to introduce photographs, drawings, and other exhibits from a crime scene. Later, other witness will use those same exhibits to discuss more specific information. This kind of witness also forms part of the chain of custody of evidence. For example, she removed bullet fragments from the victim’s shirt. Her chain of custody testimony will be part of the series of witnesses that demonstrates to the jury that the bullet fragments eventually analyzed by an expert witness were indeed the ones from the crime scene.

Mr. Muhammed, acting without a lawyer, makes various logical points on cross examination.

*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]

==Cross-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]], [[DNA]]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-12T08:40:16Z

Kgerber: /* Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''':

'''Summary''':

*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings are connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts the direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==

'''Case''': State of Maryland v. John Muhammed

'''Summary''': The State’s Attorney conducts direct examination of crime scene specialist Kimberly Clements. Whether a “crime scene specialist” is part of the department of forensic science or part of the police department varies. In the case, the crime scene specialist is not a sworn police officer. However, the prosecutor does not qualify her as an expert, instead asking her questions about her observations of a crime scene – just like any other fact witness. She conducts a thorough direct examination, laying out the evidence that was located at a crime scene from one of the beltway sniper shootings. Often, a crime scene witness such as this one is used by a prosecutor as a vehicle through which to introduce photographs, drawings, and other exhibits from a crime scene. Later, other witness will use those same exhibits to discuss more specific information. This kind of witness also forms part of the chain of custody of evidence. For example, she removed bullet fragments from the victim’s shirt. Her chain of custody testimony will be part of the series of witnesses that demonstrates to the jury that the bullet fragments eventually analyzed by an expert witness were indeed the ones from the crime scene.

Mr. Muhammed, acting without a lawyer, makes various logical points on cross examination.

*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]

==Cross-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]], [[DNA]]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-12T08:37:31Z

Kgerber: /* Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''':

'''Summary''':

*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings are connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts the direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==

'''Case''': State of Maryland v. John Muhammed

'''Summary''': The State’s Attorney conducts direct examination of crime scene specialist Kimberly Clements. Of note is that whether a “crime scene specialist” is part of the department of forensic science or part of the police department varies. In the case, the crime scene specialist is not a sworn police officer. However, the prosecutor does not qualify her as an expert, instead asking her questions about her observations of a crime scene – just like any other fact witness. She conducts a thorough direct examination, laying out the evidence that was located at a crime scene from one of the beltway sniper shootings. Often, a crime scene witness such as this one is used by a prosecutor as a vehicle through which to introduce photographs, drawings, and other exhibits from a crime scene. Later, other witness will use those same exhibits to discuss more specific information. This kind of witness also forms part of the chain of custody of evidence. For example, she removed bullet fragments from the victim’s shirt. Her chain of custody testimony will be part of the series of witnesses that demonstrates to the jury that the bullet fragments eventual analyzed by an expert witness were indeed the ones from the crime scene.

Mr. Muhammed, acting without a lawyer, makes logical various points on cross examination.

*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]

==Cross-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]], [[DNA]]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-12T08:31:45Z

Kgerber: /* Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''':

'''Summary''':

*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings are connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==

'''Case''': State of Maryland v. John Muhammed

'''Summary''': The State’s Attorney conducts direct examination of crime scene specialist Kimberly Clements. Of note is that whether a “crime scene specialist” is part of the department of forensic science or part of the police department varies. In the case, the crime scene specialist is not a sworn police officer. However, the prosecutor does not qualify her as an expert, instead asking her questions about her observations of a crime scene – just like any other fact witness. She conducts a thorough direct examination, laying out the evidence that was located at a crime scene from one of the beltway sniper shootings. Often, a crime scene witness such as this one is used by a prosecutor as a vehicle through which to introduce photographs, drawings, and other exhibits from a crime scene. Later, other witness will use those same exhibits to discuss more specific information. This kind of witness also forms part of the chain of custody of evidence. For example, she removed bullet fragments from the victim’s shirt. Her chain of custody testimony will be part of the series of witnesses that demonstrates to the jury that the bullet fragments eventual analyzed by an expert witness were indeed the ones from the crime scene.

Mr. Muhammed, acting without a lawyer, makes logical various points on cross examination.

*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]

==Cross-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]], [[DNA]]

Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts

2011-05-11T12:52:48Z

Kgerber: /* Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert */

Following are sample [[Transcripts|transcripts]] that include the state's [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] as well the defense attorney's [[Cross-Examination | cross-examination]] of state [[Expert Witnesses| experts]]. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in [[Forensic Evidence|forensic evidence]] as well as the basic principals of [[Forensic Evidence| forensics]].

== Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings were connected to a [[Overview of Crime Scene Investigation| shooting scene]]. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.
*[[Media:Anderson_Matthew_Crime Scene_2009_05_27_Perez-Amaya.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert==

'''Case''': United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

'''Summary''': The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings that were connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

*[[Media:Arntsen_Gary_Firearm_Toolmark_2006_09_25_Montoya-Baires.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Firearm Toolmark Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The Commonwealth Attorney conducts direct examination of a police detective. He does not qualify the police detective as an expert in any area, but lays the foundation for later expert testimony on a [[DNA]] inclusion by eliciting testimony from the detective that he collected DNA from the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant, by having the defendant provide a “buccal swab” – which would later be typed to produce a DNA result, and compared to DNA evidence at a crime scene. The direct examination is short and simple, but is also a necessary foundation so that the court, in admitting the DNA evidence, and the jury, in considering it, knows that the buccal swab in question came from the defendant. This “chain of custody” testimony is necessary, and rarely challenged unless there has been a notable police error.

*[[Media:Bond_ Robert_Detective_Homicide_2007_01_09_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Homicide Detective]]

==Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investigator==
*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]
==Cross-Examination of Gang Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos

'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.

Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Gang Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

'''Summary''': Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death.
Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination.
Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.
*[[Media:Haskell_Neal_Entomology_2006_08_25_Rogers.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Entomology Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of [[Fingerprints|Fingerprint]] Expert==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Matthew Dowdy

'''Summary''': The prosecutor conducts a direct examination of a police [[Fingerprints|fingerprint]] examiner, who testifies to the standard opinion of fingerprint examiners that all fingerprints are unique and that a fingerprint examiner can give a conclusive opinion as to a “match” if, in his or her expert opinion, there are enough points of comparison to declare a match. The expert is qualified, and, despite a pre-trial motion attacking the reliability of the science of conclusive fingerprint “matches”, is allowed to give an opinion. He is cross examined by defense counsel Jon Sheldon about the assumptions inherent in fingerprint examination. While there is a substantial literature arguing that conclusive fingerprint matches are wholly unscientific, such testimony is so historically accepted it is generally admissible.
*[[Media:Reeves_William_Fingerprints_2007_01_9_amp_10_Dowdy.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Fingerprint Expert]]

==Cross-Examination of Pathologist==

'''Case:''' State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

'''Summary:''' The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

*[[Media:Revercomb_Carolyn_ME_Pathologist_2006_05_11_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Pathologist]]

==Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner==

'''Case''': People of California v. Joseph Barrett

'''Summary''': This transcript part does not include a qualifications section. It primarily consists of a cross examination of a medical examiner in a murder case who has previously provided direct examination testimony about cause of death (a stabbing), and about whether a certain weapon would be consistent with one which could have caused the wound which caused death and was linked to the defendant. The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife. All the expert can say is whether a knife wound is “consistent with” a certain knife. Naturally, hundreds if not thousands of knives are “consistent with” all knife wounds, as all “consistent with” means is that a particular knife is not eliminated as a possible cause of a wound. The meaning and overuse by prosecutors of the term “consistent with” often plays out during expert testimony.

*[[Media:Swalwell_Christopher_Medical Examiner_2003_12_08_Barrett.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of Medical Examiner]]

==Cross-Examination of [[DNA]] Expert==

'''Case''': United States of America v. Clifton Crawford

'''Summary''': This is a transcript of a hearing where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence of “mitochondrial” [[DNA]] on the grounds that it is not sufficiently reliable. Since it is not a trial transcript, the questioning of all three experts focuses on general reliability of the science as opposed to its specific application in this case – its use to link a defendant to a crime.

The first part of the transcript is a [[Cross-Examination|cross-examination]] by defense counsel of a forensic scientist, Dr. Catherine Theisen, who has previously given [[Direct Examination|direct examination]] testimony on the topic of DNA evidence. The topic is mitochondrial [[DNA]] – a certain type of DNA testing which excludes or includes an individual based on his or her maternal lineage. If a person’s mitochondrial DNA “matches” a sample from a crime scene, every maternal relative of that person would also have “matching” DNA. In this transcript, the defense attorney points out and questions the expert about the fact that the statistical database she used to include the defendant as a possible contributor to a sample included other people who also “matched” the sample. The defense attorney attempts to illustrate that (1) mitochondrial DNA is not very discriminating as a forensic tool, and (2) it is very difficult to tell how discriminating it is where, as here, there is limited information about where the individuals in the database came from in that people from the same geographical region are probably more likely to share common DNA than those from distinct geographic regions.

This transcript also contains a full direct and cross examination of another government DNA, expert. The qualifications section is complete and the expert’s qualifications to give an opinion on mitochondrial DNA are not challenged. This transcript also includes the direct and cross examination of a defense DNA expert.

*[[Media:Theisen_ Budowle_Kittles_DNA_2006_06_29_Crawford.pdf|Sample Cross-Examination of DNA Expert]]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Direct Examination]],

Chile

2011-03-01T14:31:08Z

Kgerber: /* Defendants' Rights */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
Insert sentence on Chile.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. The Constitution guarantees rights and provides protections for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchical system of importance with institutional acts at the top, followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

Following a major reform of the criminal justice system, a number of rights are now guaranteed to individuals during the trial process. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and individuals brought before the court must be charged under a law already officially enacted. The actions of the individual must correspond to the elements of the crime charged, as highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defense team to ensure “equality before the law”. If an individual is unable to provide for their own defense, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defense. A principle similar to ''habeas corpus'' applies under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury.
====Pre-trial====

The police force within Chile is known as the ‘Carabineros de Chile’. Under article 19 of the Constitution, an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law”, which gives the police very broad authority. The police fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor and have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. The Office of the Public Prosecutor investigates crimes and at its option can choose to close a case or suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Following arrest, an individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours. At this time, the judge can decide to extend the detention up to 5 days. A record of the individual detained must be made in the public register. Bail should be ordered unless detention is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

Under article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code, the defendant is required to attend an initial complaint hearing which is regarded as the “formalization of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and include details of the defendant, case, a possible sentence and witnesses.
====Trial====

Chile has a reformed accusatory system. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judicial duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges are liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. While the judiciary is intended to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent this is true.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and trials are held publicly with oral proceedings and evidence presented by both parties. Cases begin before Guarantee Courts which grant the power to investigate the case and hear simple cases (like those involving a guilty plea). There is a hierarchical system with Supreme Courts at the top, Court of Appeals in the middle, and tribunals of first instance at the bottom. There are no special commissions.

Trials are heard by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the facts of the case. The defendant must testify during the trial. Evidence which is transparent can be presented. To ensure the quality of evidence, the state provides protection to victims and witnesses participating in trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution.

The clerk begins the trial by calling the court to order. Administration procedures follow. Then opening remarks are given and witnesses are cross-examined. The trial concludes with final remarks. The judges hear the proceedings and then make their decision. The entire case will be heard in one hearing which also includes the verdict. However, if the case has taken a long time to present, the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings.

During sentencing proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard. The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences that deprive individuals of their liberty. Sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

====Post-Conviction====

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in Chilean prisons are very poor. They lack clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is poor sanitation which has led to poor prisoner health and the spread of numerous diseases. These problems are exacerbated by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons. Some prisons house far more prisoners than they were originally designed for, with devastating consequences like the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado admitted that prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T14:26:20Z

Kgerber: /* Type of System */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
Insert sentence on Chile.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. The Constitution guarantees rights and provides protections for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchical system of importance with institutional acts at the top, followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

Following a major reform of the criminal justice system, a number of rights are now guaranteed to individuals during the trial process. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and individuals brought before the court must be charged under a law already officially enacted. The actions of the individual must correspond to the elements of the crime charged, as highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defense team to ensure “equality before the law”. If an individual is unable to provide for their own defense, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defense. A principle similar to ''habeas corpus'' applies under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury.
====Pre-trial====

The police force within Chile is known as the ‘Carabineros de Chile’. Under article 19 of the Constitution, an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law”, which gives the police very broad authority. The police fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor and have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. The Office of the Public Prosecutor investigates crimes and at its option can choose to close a case or suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Following arrest, an individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours. At this time, the judge can decide to extend the detention up to 5 days. A record of the individual detained must be made in the public register. Bail should be ordered unless detention is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Chile has a reformed accusatory system. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judicial duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges are liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. While the judiciary is intended to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent this is true.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and trials are held publicly with oral proceedings and evidence presented by both parties. Cases begin before Guarantee Courts which grant the power to investigate the case and hear simple cases (like those involving a guilty plea). There is a hierarchical system with Supreme Courts at the top, Court of Appeals in the middle, and tribunals of first instance at the bottom. There are no special commissions.

Under article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code, the defendant is required to attend an initial complaint hearing which is regarded as the “formalization of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and include details of the defendant, case, a possible sentence and witnesses.

Trials are heard by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the facts of the case. The defendant must testify during the trial. Evidence which is transparent can be presented. To ensure the quality of evidence, the state provides protection to victims and witnesses participating in trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution.

The clerk begins the trial by calling the court to order. Administration procedures follow. Then opening remarks are given and witnesses are cross-examined. The trial concludes with final remarks. The judges hear the proceedings and then make their decision. The entire case will be heard in one hearing which also includes the verdict. However, if the case has taken a long time to present, the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings.

During sentencing proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard. The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences that deprive individuals of their liberty. Sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

====Post-Conviction====

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in Chilean prisons are very poor. They lack clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is poor sanitation which has led to poor prisoner health and the spread of numerous diseases. These problems are exacerbated by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons. Some prisons house far more prisoners than they were originally designed for, with devastating consequences like the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado admitted that prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T14:23:39Z

Kgerber: /* Background */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
Insert sentence on Chile.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. This Constitution guarantees rights and provides protection for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchy system of importance with institutional acts, being followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

Following a major reform of the criminal justice system, a number of rights are now guaranteed to individuals during the trial process. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and individuals brought before the court must be charged under a law already officially enacted. The actions of the individual must correspond to the elements of the crime charged, as highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defense team to ensure “equality before the law”. If an individual is unable to provide for their own defense, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defense. A principle similar to ''habeas corpus'' applies under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury.
====Pre-trial====

The police force within Chile is known as the ‘Carabineros de Chile’. Under article 19 of the Constitution, an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law”, which gives the police very broad authority. The police fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor and have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. The Office of the Public Prosecutor investigates crimes and at its option can choose to close a case or suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Following arrest, an individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours. At this time, the judge can decide to extend the detention up to 5 days. A record of the individual detained must be made in the public register. Bail should be ordered unless detention is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Chile has a reformed accusatory system. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judicial duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges are liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. While the judiciary is intended to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent this is true.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and trials are held publicly with oral proceedings and evidence presented by both parties. Cases begin before Guarantee Courts which grant the power to investigate the case and hear simple cases (like those involving a guilty plea). There is a hierarchical system with Supreme Courts at the top, Court of Appeals in the middle, and tribunals of first instance at the bottom. There are no special commissions.

Under article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code, the defendant is required to attend an initial complaint hearing which is regarded as the “formalization of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and include details of the defendant, case, a possible sentence and witnesses.

Trials are heard by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the facts of the case. The defendant must testify during the trial. Evidence which is transparent can be presented. To ensure the quality of evidence, the state provides protection to victims and witnesses participating in trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution.

The clerk begins the trial by calling the court to order. Administration procedures follow. Then opening remarks are given and witnesses are cross-examined. The trial concludes with final remarks. The judges hear the proceedings and then make their decision. The entire case will be heard in one hearing which also includes the verdict. However, if the case has taken a long time to present, the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings.

During sentencing proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard. The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences that deprive individuals of their liberty. Sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

====Post-Conviction====

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in Chilean prisons are very poor. They lack clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is poor sanitation which has led to poor prisoner health and the spread of numerous diseases. These problems are exacerbated by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons. Some prisons house far more prisoners than they were originally designed for, with devastating consequences like the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado admitted that prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T14:23:04Z

Kgerber: /* Prisons in Chile */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
A small island nation in the Caribbean, the Republic of Cuba has been ruled by Fidel Castro since the Cuban Revolution of 1953-1959. With a population of over 11 million people, Cuba is the largest island nation in the Caribbean.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. This Constitution guarantees rights and provides protection for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchy system of importance with institutional acts, being followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

Following a major reform of the criminal justice system, a number of rights are now guaranteed to individuals during the trial process. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and individuals brought before the court must be charged under a law already officially enacted. The actions of the individual must correspond to the elements of the crime charged, as highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defense team to ensure “equality before the law”. If an individual is unable to provide for their own defense, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defense. A principle similar to ''habeas corpus'' applies under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury.
====Pre-trial====

The police force within Chile is known as the ‘Carabineros de Chile’. Under article 19 of the Constitution, an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law”, which gives the police very broad authority. The police fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor and have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. The Office of the Public Prosecutor investigates crimes and at its option can choose to close a case or suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Following arrest, an individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours. At this time, the judge can decide to extend the detention up to 5 days. A record of the individual detained must be made in the public register. Bail should be ordered unless detention is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Chile has a reformed accusatory system. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judicial duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges are liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. While the judiciary is intended to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent this is true.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and trials are held publicly with oral proceedings and evidence presented by both parties. Cases begin before Guarantee Courts which grant the power to investigate the case and hear simple cases (like those involving a guilty plea). There is a hierarchical system with Supreme Courts at the top, Court of Appeals in the middle, and tribunals of first instance at the bottom. There are no special commissions.

Under article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code, the defendant is required to attend an initial complaint hearing which is regarded as the “formalization of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and include details of the defendant, case, a possible sentence and witnesses.

Trials are heard by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the facts of the case. The defendant must testify during the trial. Evidence which is transparent can be presented. To ensure the quality of evidence, the state provides protection to victims and witnesses participating in trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution.

The clerk begins the trial by calling the court to order. Administration procedures follow. Then opening remarks are given and witnesses are cross-examined. The trial concludes with final remarks. The judges hear the proceedings and then make their decision. The entire case will be heard in one hearing which also includes the verdict. However, if the case has taken a long time to present, the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings.

During sentencing proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard. The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences that deprive individuals of their liberty. Sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

====Post-Conviction====

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in Chilean prisons are very poor. They lack clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is poor sanitation which has led to poor prisoner health and the spread of numerous diseases. These problems are exacerbated by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons. Some prisons house far more prisoners than they were originally designed for, with devastating consequences like the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado admitted that prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T14:21:17Z

Kgerber:

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
A small island nation in the Caribbean, the Republic of Cuba has been ruled by Fidel Castro since the Cuban Revolution of 1953-1959. With a population of over 11 million people, Cuba is the largest island nation in the Caribbean.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. This Constitution guarantees rights and provides protection for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchy system of importance with institutional acts, being followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

Following a major reform of the criminal justice system, a number of rights are now guaranteed to individuals during the trial process. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and individuals brought before the court must be charged under a law already officially enacted. The actions of the individual must correspond to the elements of the crime charged, as highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defense team to ensure “equality before the law”. If an individual is unable to provide for their own defense, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defense. A principle similar to ''habeas corpus'' applies under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury.
====Pre-trial====

The police force within Chile is known as the ‘Carabineros de Chile’. Under article 19 of the Constitution, an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law”, which gives the police very broad authority. The police fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor and have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. The Office of the Public Prosecutor investigates crimes and at its option can choose to close a case or suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Following arrest, an individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours. At this time, the judge can decide to extend the detention up to 5 days. A record of the individual detained must be made in the public register. Bail should be ordered unless detention is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Chile has a reformed accusatory system. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judicial duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges are liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. While the judiciary is intended to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent this is true.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and trials are held publicly with oral proceedings and evidence presented by both parties. Cases begin before Guarantee Courts which grant the power to investigate the case and hear simple cases (like those involving a guilty plea). There is a hierarchical system with Supreme Courts at the top, Court of Appeals in the middle, and tribunals of first instance at the bottom. There are no special commissions.

Under article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code, the defendant is required to attend an initial complaint hearing which is regarded as the “formalization of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and include details of the defendant, case, a possible sentence and witnesses.

Trials are heard by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the facts of the case. The defendant must testify during the trial. Evidence which is transparent can be presented. To ensure the quality of evidence, the state provides protection to victims and witnesses participating in trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution.

The clerk begins the trial by calling the court to order. Administration procedures follow. Then opening remarks are given and witnesses are cross-examined. The trial concludes with final remarks. The judges hear the proceedings and then make their decision. The entire case will be heard in one hearing which also includes the verdict. However, if the case has taken a long time to present, the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings.

During sentencing proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard. The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences that deprive individuals of their liberty. Sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

====Post-Conviction====

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in Chilean prisons are very poor. There is a lack of clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is a poor sanitation which has led to poor prisoner health and numerous diseases. This problem is exacerbated by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons. Some prisons house far more prisoners than they were originally designed for, with devastating consequences like the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado admitted that the prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T14:07:49Z

Kgerber: /* Trial */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
A small island nation in the Caribbean, the Republic of Cuba has been ruled by Fidel Castro since the Cuban Revolution of 1953-1959. With a population of over 11 million people, Cuba is the largest island nation in the Caribbean.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. This Constitution guarantees rights and provides protection for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchy system of importance with institutional acts, being followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

Following a major reform of the criminal justice system, a number of rights are now guaranteed to individuals during the trial process. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and individuals brought before the court must be charged under a law already officially enacted. The actions of the individual must correspond to the elements of the crime charged, as highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defense team to ensure “equality before the law”. If an individual is unable to provide for their own defense, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defense. A principle similar to ''habeas corpus'' applies under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury.
====Pre-trial====

The police force within Chile is known as the ‘Carabineros de Chile’. Under article 19 of the Constitution, an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law”, which gives the police very broad authority. The police fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor and have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. The Office of the Public Prosecutor investigates crimes and at its option can choose to close a case or suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Following arrest, an individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours. At this time, the judge can decide to extend the detention up to 5 days. A record of the individual detained must be made in the public register. Bail should be ordered unless detention is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Chile has a reformed accusatory system. Cases begin before Guarantee Courts which grant the power to investigate the case and hear simple cases (like those involving a guilty plea). There is a hierarchical system with Supreme Courts at the top, Court of Appeals in the middle, and tribunals of first instance at the bottom. There are no special commissions.

Under article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code, the defendant is required to attend an initial complaint hearing which is regarded as the “formalization of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and include details of the defendant, case, a possible sentence and witnesses.

Trials are heard by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the facts of the case. The defendant must testify during the trial. Evidence which is transparent can be presented. To ensure the quality of evidence, the state provides protection to victims and witnesses participating in trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution.

The clerk begins the trial by calling the court to order. Administration procedures follow. Then opening remarks are given and witnesses are cross-examined. The trial concludes with final remarks. The judges hear the proceedings and then make their decision. The entire case will be heard in one hearing which also includes the verdict. However, if the case has taken a long time to present, the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings. During sentencing proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard.

====Post-Conviction====

The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences which deprive individuals of their liberty. The sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and the trial will be held in public, involving oral proceedings and evidence from both parties. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judiciary duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges will be liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. Whilst the judiciary are meant to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent of whether or not this is true.

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in the prisons in Chile are very poor. There is a lack of clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is a poor sanitation which has led to poor health and numerous diseases. This problem is further worsened by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons, and some prisons house far more prisoner than originally designed for, this had devastating consequences, such as the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado has said the prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T13:42:33Z

Kgerber: /* Defendants' Rights */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
A small island nation in the Caribbean, the Republic of Cuba has been ruled by Fidel Castro since the Cuban Revolution of 1953-1959. With a population of over 11 million people, Cuba is the largest island nation in the Caribbean.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. This Constitution guarantees rights and provides protection for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchy system of importance with institutional acts, being followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

Following a major reform of the criminal justice system, a number of rights are now guaranteed to individuals during the trial process. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and individuals brought before the court must be charged under a law already officially enacted. The actions of the individual must correspond to the elements of the crime charged, as highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defense team to ensure “equality before the law”. If an individual is unable to provide for their own defense, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defense. A principle similar to ''habeas corpus'' applies under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury.
====Pre-trial====

The police force within Chile is known as the ‘Carabineros de Chile’. Under article 19 of the Constitution, an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law”, which gives the police very broad authority. The police fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor and have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. The Office of the Public Prosecutor investigates crimes and at its option can choose to close a case or suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Following arrest, an individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours. At this time, the judge can decide to extend the detention up to 5 days. A record of the individual detained must be made in the public register. Bail should be ordered unless detention is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Cases begin before Guarantee Courts where the power to investigate the case is granted, or where simple cases are heard (those involving a guilty plead for example). There are tribunals of first instance and Courts of Appeals with the Supreme Courts being at the top of this hierarchy system (there are no special commissions). The trial will involve a hearing by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the particular facts of the case. The defendant is obliged to testify during the case. Evidence which is transparent can be presented, and to ensure the quality of evidence, the state ensures to provide protection to the victims and witnesses participating in the trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution. This reformed accusatory system still receives criticism.

There will be an initial complaint hearing under Article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code and the defendant is required to attend this hearing which is regarded as the “formalisation of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and this will include details of the defendant, case, sentencing and witnesses.

During the trial, the clerk will begin by calling the court to order, the administration procedures will follow with the opening remarks followed by witnesses being cross-examined. The trial will conclude with final remarks. The judges will hear the proceedings and then make their decision, the whole case will be heard in one hearing include the verdict, unless the case has taken a long time and therefore the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings. During these proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard.

====Post-Conviction====

The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences which deprive individuals of their liberty. The sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and the trial will be held in public, involving oral proceedings and evidence from both parties. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judiciary duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges will be liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. Whilst the judiciary are meant to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent of whether or not this is true.

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in the prisons in Chile are very poor. There is a lack of clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is a poor sanitation which has led to poor health and numerous diseases. This problem is further worsened by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons, and some prisons house far more prisoner than originally designed for, this had devastating consequences, such as the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado has said the prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T13:17:03Z

Kgerber: /* Defendants' Rights */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
A small island nation in the Caribbean, the Republic of Cuba has been ruled by Fidel Castro since the Cuban Revolution of 1953-1959. With a population of over 11 million people, Cuba is the largest island nation in the Caribbean.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. This Constitution guarantees rights and provides protection for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchy system of importance with institutional acts, being followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

Following a major reform of the criminal justice system, a number of rights are now guaranteed to individuals during the trial process. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and individuals brought before the court must be charged under a law already officially enacted. The actions of the individual must carry the necessary elements for the act to be regarded as a ‘crime’ highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, there must also be “equality before the law” and in order to ensure this, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defense team. If an individual is unable to provide their own defense, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defense. A principle similar to ‘habeas corpus’ applies involving rights such as those which affect physical liberty under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury. These provisions are intended to ensure a fair trial.

====Pre-trial====

The police force within Chile is known as the ‘Carabineros de Chile’. Under article 19 of the Constitution an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law” – this leaves a very wide scope and whilst this agency does fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor, the police force do have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. It is the Office of the Public Prosecutor who will investigate the crime, and with this responsibility comes the option to close the case and suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Once an individual has been arrested, they must be brought before a judge within 24 hours who can then extend this to 5 days detention. There must be a record in the public register of the individual being detained and bail should be ordered unless it is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Cases begin before Guarantee Courts where the power to investigate the case is granted, or where simple cases are heard (those involving a guilty plead for example). There are tribunals of first instance and Courts of Appeals with the Supreme Courts being at the top of this hierarchy system (there are no special commissions). The trial will involve a hearing by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the particular facts of the case. The defendant is obliged to testify during the case. Evidence which is transparent can be presented, and to ensure the quality of evidence, the state ensures to provide protection to the victims and witnesses participating in the trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution. This reformed accusatory system still receives criticism.

There will be an initial complaint hearing under Article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code and the defendant is required to attend this hearing which is regarded as the “formalisation of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and this will include details of the defendant, case, sentencing and witnesses.

During the trial, the clerk will begin by calling the court to order, the administration procedures will follow with the opening remarks followed by witnesses being cross-examined. The trial will conclude with final remarks. The judges will hear the proceedings and then make their decision, the whole case will be heard in one hearing include the verdict, unless the case has taken a long time and therefore the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings. During these proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard.

====Post-Conviction====

The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences which deprive individuals of their liberty. The sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and the trial will be held in public, involving oral proceedings and evidence from both parties. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judiciary duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges will be liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. Whilst the judiciary are meant to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent of whether or not this is true.

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in the prisons in Chile are very poor. There is a lack of clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is a poor sanitation which has led to poor health and numerous diseases. This problem is further worsened by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons, and some prisons house far more prisoner than originally designed for, this had devastating consequences, such as the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado has said the prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T13:04:21Z

Kgerber: /* Type of System */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
A small island nation in the Caribbean, the Republic of Cuba has been ruled by Fidel Castro since the Cuban Revolution of 1953-1959. With a population of over 11 million people, Cuba is the largest island nation in the Caribbean.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 and its subsequent amendments. This Constitution guarantees rights and provides protection for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchy system of importance with institutional acts, being followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

There are a number of rights which are to be guaranteed to individuals during the trial process following a major reform of the criminal justice system. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and the law by which individuals are being brought before the court must already be officially enacted. The actions of the individual must carry the necessary elements for the act to be regarded as a ‘crime’ highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, there must also be “equality before the law” and in order to ensure this, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defence team. If an individual is unable to provide their own defence, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defence. A principle similar to that of ‘habeas corpus’ applies involving rights such as those which affect physical liberty under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury. These provisions are enacted to ensure a fair trial, but the system is not without its criticisms.

====Pre-trial====

The ‘Carabineros de Chile’ is the name given to the police force within Chile. Under article 19 of the Constitution an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law” – this leaves a very wide scope and whilst this agency does fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor, the police force do have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. It is the Office of the Public Prosecutor who will investigate the crime, and with this responsibility comes the option to close the case and suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Once an individual has been arrested, they must be brought before a judge within 24 hours who can then extend this to 5 days detention. There must be a record in the public register of the individual being detained and bail should be ordered unless it is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Cases begin before Guarantee Courts where the power to investigate the case is granted, or where simple cases are heard (those involving a guilty plead for example). There are tribunals of first instance and Courts of Appeals with the Supreme Courts being at the top of this hierarchy system (there are no special commissions). The trial will involve a hearing by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the particular facts of the case. The defendant is obliged to testify during the case. Evidence which is transparent can be presented, and to ensure the quality of evidence, the state ensures to provide protection to the victims and witnesses participating in the trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution. This reformed accusatory system still receives criticism.

There will be an initial complaint hearing under Article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code and the defendant is required to attend this hearing which is regarded as the “formalisation of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and this will include details of the defendant, case, sentencing and witnesses.

During the trial, the clerk will begin by calling the court to order, the administration procedures will follow with the opening remarks followed by witnesses being cross-examined. The trial will conclude with final remarks. The judges will hear the proceedings and then make their decision, the whole case will be heard in one hearing include the verdict, unless the case has taken a long time and therefore the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings. During these proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard.

====Post-Conviction====

The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences which deprive individuals of their liberty. The sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and the trial will be held in public, involving oral proceedings and evidence from both parties. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judiciary duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges will be liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. Whilst the judiciary are meant to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent of whether or not this is true.

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in the prisons in Chile are very poor. There is a lack of clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is a poor sanitation which has led to poor health and numerous diseases. This problem is further worsened by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons, and some prisons house far more prisoner than originally designed for, this had devastating consequences, such as the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado has said the prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

Chile

2011-03-01T13:02:48Z

Kgerber: /* Type of System */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ADDITIONAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:Constitution_Chile_1980.pdf | Constitution of Chile]]
*[[Media:Criminal_Procedure_Chile.pdf | Criminal Procedure Code of Chile]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

==Background==
A small island nation in the Caribbean, the Republic of Cuba has been ruled by Fidel Castro since the Cuban Revolution of 1953-1959. With a population of over 11 million people, Cuba is the largest island nation in the Caribbean.

==Type of System==

The Chilean legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code and is governed by the Constitution of 1980 as well as the subsequent amendments. This Constitution guarantees rights and provides protection for individuals. Legislation passed creates a hierarchy system of importance with institutional acts, being followed by special and order acts (encompassing both decree and ordinary law).

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Defendants' rights are supported by the Constitution of 1980.

==Defendants' Rights==

There are a number of rights which are to be guaranteed to individuals during the trial process following a major reform of the criminal justice system. Previously, proceedings could take a number of years, this has now been reduced to a few months. There is a presumption of innocence and the law by which individuals are being brought before the court must already be officially enacted. The actions of the individual must carry the necessary elements for the act to be regarded as a ‘crime’ highlighted under article 19 of the Constitution which states “The law cannot presume de jure criminal liability”. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, there must also be “equality before the law” and in order to ensure this, every individual has a right to be represented by a legal defence team. If an individual is unable to provide their own defence, the Criminal Public Defender will ensure the defendant is provided with free legal defence. A principle similar to that of ‘habeas corpus’ applies involving rights such as those which affect physical liberty under Article 20 of the Constitution. There is a right to an impartial judge but no right to a trial by jury. These provisions are enacted to ensure a fair trial, but the system is not without its criticisms.

====Pre-trial====

The ‘Carabineros de Chile’ is the name given to the police force within Chile. Under article 19 of the Constitution an arrest must be “served in a manner prescribed in law” – this leaves a very wide scope and whilst this agency does fall within the scope of responsibility of the prosecutor, the police force do have the authority to arrest those with outstanding warrants, collect evidence, identify witnesses and perform “identity checks” under article 81 of the Code. It is the Office of the Public Prosecutor who will investigate the crime, and with this responsibility comes the option to close the case and suggest alternatives to court proceedings.

Once an individual has been arrested, they must be brought before a judge within 24 hours who can then extend this to 5 days detention. There must be a record in the public register of the individual being detained and bail should be ordered unless it is necessary for the protection of the investigation, victims or society in general.

====Trial====

Cases begin before Guarantee Courts where the power to investigate the case is granted, or where simple cases are heard (those involving a guilty plead for example). There are tribunals of first instance and Courts of Appeals with the Supreme Courts being at the top of this hierarchy system (there are no special commissions). The trial will involve a hearing by 3 judges who have no previous knowledge of the particular facts of the case. The defendant is obliged to testify during the case. Evidence which is transparent can be presented, and to ensure the quality of evidence, the state ensures to provide protection to the victims and witnesses participating in the trial proceedings under article 83 of the Constitution. This reformed accusatory system still receives criticism.

There will be an initial complaint hearing under Article 229 of the Criminal Procedures Code and the defendant is required to attend this hearing which is regarded as the “formalisation of investigation”. A charging instrument must be created and this will include details of the defendant, case, sentencing and witnesses.

During the trial, the clerk will begin by calling the court to order, the administration procedures will follow with the opening remarks followed by witnesses being cross-examined. The trial will conclude with final remarks. The judges will hear the proceedings and then make their decision, the whole case will be heard in one hearing include the verdict, unless the case has taken a long time and therefore the verdict may be delayed by up to 24 hours. If guilty, the defendant will be detained and sentenced in separate proceedings. During these proceedings, a summary of the case and decision will be heard.

====Post-Conviction====

The Civil Administration courts cannot order sentences which deprive individuals of their liberty. The sentencing procedure involves mandatory sentences which are influenced by aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant. Article 19 of the Constitution states that “the death penalty may only be instituted for a crime considered in a law approved by a qualified quorum”.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the Public Prosecutor and the trial will be held in public, involving oral proceedings and evidence from both parties. The procedures of the Chilean judiciary are governed by Chapter Six of the Constitution of 1980. Article 73 ensures the President is not involved in the exercise of judiciary duties and the appointment of judges is covered by Article 75. Under Article 76, judges will be liable if they avoid a substantive area of law. Whilst the judiciary are meant to be independent, there are concerns as to the extent of whether or not this is true.

Cases are reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and can progress to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the hierarchal system, if the court decides that the decision of a lower court has been “unjustifiably erroneous or arbitrary” under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or if there has been a “serious procedural breach” (under Article 374). Article 21 of the Constitution also ensures individual rights are protected through the reinstating of the rights which are violated by an unlawful act, for example in the arrest procedure. Such an appeal must be before a competent judge and these legal faults should be corrected. There is no appeal available for decisions made by the Supreme Court but they can correct errors made.

====Prisons in Chile====

The conditions in the prisons in Chile are very poor. There is a lack of clean, safe water and food providing sufficient nutrition. There is a poor sanitation which has led to poor health and numerous diseases. This problem is further worsened by a lack of medical care. Chile has a very high number of individuals incarcerated in its numerous prisons, and some prisons house far more prisoner than originally designed for, this had devastating consequences, such as the riot in the San Miguel prison which led to the death of 81 prisoners. Supreme Court prosecutor, Monica Maldonado has said the prisoners are treated in an “inhuman, degrading and cruel” manner.

----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]
<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>

*2010: 52,127 prisoners

{{Languages|Chile}}
__NOTOC__

False Confessions / Admissions

2011-02-02T11:06:35Z

Kgerber: /* Traits of Coercion, Force, and False Statements */

== Background ==

The phenomenon of false confessions is not a recent development. In the United States, false confessions date back to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. In this period, it was common for accusations of witchcraft to lead to false confessions.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

Today, false confessions are a leading cause of error in wrongful convictions. In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants have made self-incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref> Because false confessions are generally discovered through subsequent exonerations, the overall frequency of false confessions is unknown.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Persuasiveness of Confessions ==

Confessions are considered extremely persuasive evidence of guilt and are perhaps the most damaging evidence a prosecutor can present at trial.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Of crimes that are solved, the majority are solved as result of a confession obtained through police interrogation.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Despite widespread evidence that false confessions occur, juries have difficulty believing an innocent person would confess to a crime they did not commit.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Why do Innocent People Confess? ==
Most people, particularly members of the jury acting as the fact-finder, have difficulty comprehending that an innocent person may confess to a crime he did not commit. However, false confessions are not uncommon.
Some common elements that can lead to a false confession are:
*Duress
*Coercion
*Intoxication
*Diminished Capacity
*Mental Impairment
*Ignorance of the Law
*Fear of violence
*Threat of Harm
*Misunderstanding of the Situation

Understanding what can lead to a false confession is the key to recognizing one in the future.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

== Traits of Coerced, Forced, and False Confessions ==

Defense attorneys are responsible for investigating any confessions made by clients. Many people misunderstand coercion to include only physical torture. However, police investigators often employ psychologically coercive techniques that can also lead to false confessions. Attorneys unfamiliar with or inexperienced with false confessions may inappropriately counsel their clients to plead guilty based on the false confession to avoid harsh sentences at trial.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref> Common elements that increase the likelihood a confession is false include:

{|border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" align="center"
|-
!'''Coerced Confession'''
!'''Forced Confession'''
!'''False Confession'''
|-
|Pressure
|Physical Threats
|Youth
|-
|Deception
|Emotional Threats
|Mental Health Issues
|-
|Persuasion
|Isolation
|Linguistic Clues
|-
|Mental Health Issues
|Deprivation of Food
|Inaccurate Answers
|-
|False Promises
|Physical Contact
|Non-Responsive
|-
|False Facts
|Several Interrogators
|Contradictions
|-
|Youth
|Length of Detention
|Exaggeration
|-
|Low Self-Esteem
|Fear
|Desire to Please
|}

All of the elements listed above can contribute to a client making a false confession. Defense attorneys should obtain any evidence surrounding the confession including police recordings of the interrogation and subsequent confession. In addition, it is important to interview your client and the interrogating police officers. Ask the client what happened and look for any discrepancies between their story and the confession. Remember to never presume the client is guilty, even if they have "confessed" to the police.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Types of False Confessions ==
There are three types of false confessions: Voluntary, Compliant and Persuaded or Internalized.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Voluntary Confessions:'''

A voluntary confession is one that occurs in the absence of police coercion. Typically the individual learns about the crime and contacts the police. Sometimes it is the result of pressure from third parties or the result of a mental illness. For instance, sometimes people confess to protect the real criminal or provide an alibi for another crime. In high profile cases, voluntary confessions may result from a desire for attention or self-punishment.

Voluntary false confessions tend to be an anomaly and the result of a personal choice.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Compliant False Confessions:'''

Compliant false confessions are given in response to police coercion, stress or pressure. Compliant confessions occur when the confessor knows that he is innocent and that what he is saying is false. A variation of the compliant false confession is the coerced compliant false confession in which a confessor is convinced that he is trapped and the best solution is to confess in spite of his innocence. Typically the pressure of the interrogation process has become so overwhelming that the suspect is willing to agree to anything to avoid being questioned further. The confession is typically offered in exchange for a promise by the police, either for the defendant to return home, to end to the interview, or to protect the suspect's family. The perception from the confessor's perspective is that the immediate gain of ending interrogation outweighs the long-term consequences of confessing.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref> Many suspects do not understand that any kind of confession tends to be very persuasive to the fact-finder. Whether or not it is retracted in the future, the impact of the confession on the fact finder remains powerful.

'''Persuaded or Internalized False Confessions:'''

The third type is persuaded or internalized false confession, in which the suspect becomes convinced that he may have committed the crime. The suspect doubts his own innocence, and then is persuaded that he must have committed the crime without remembering. In this type of false confession, the suspect actually believes that he may be guilty. Memory lapses contribute to this belief, whether as a result of amnesia or other causes. Coercive tactics and techniques are used to engender self-doubt and create a false reality for the suspect. Coercive interrogation techniques will be explained in greater detail below.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Coercive Interrogation Techniques ==

The police officer's goal is to make the suspect confess. Your goal as the defense attorney is to prevent any undue coercion or bullying tactics. While most of the below factors can and probably will be present during police interrogation, any can contribute to false confessions. It is your job as the defense attorney to look for all of these factors and then evaluate whether your client was coerced on a case-by-case basis.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Coercive Tactics:'''
*Repeated Statements by Investigators of Client's Guilt
*Repeated Reminders of Memory Lapses
*Withholding Information
*Isolation from Family, Friends and/or Legal Defender
*Lengthy Interrogation
*Emotionally Intense Interrogation
*Presentation of "Scientific Evidence" without Explanation
*Creating a Hostile Environment, where the Accused Fears Denying Guilt
*Physical Threats or Physical Abuse

As the defender, it is your responsibility to look for evidence of any coercion. All legal defenders should be present during interrogation. If you cannot be physically present, try to obtain any recordings of the interrogation and look for coercion. Recordings are the best way to decrease the likelihood of false confessions. They have been shown to decrease coercion and increase the reliability of confessions as evidence. Be sure to listen for any prevarications by your client, such as:

'''Typical Prevarications:'''
*"I guess I must have . . ."
*"I think I did this next . . ."
*"If what you said is true, then . . ."
*"I just want to get this over with . . ."
*"If I tell you what happened, can I go home?"

Any of the above phrases point to coercion and uncertainty, but remember to evaluate the confession as a whole, not individual statements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Confession Contamination ==

One of the problems with false confessions is that the confession often includes details that theoretically only the perpetrator should know. But, often the police supply details of the crime during interrogation to encourage confession. As a result, the confessor appears guilty because of his perceived knowledge of the crime. This issue is particularly problematic when presented to a jury.

=== Case Studies ===

*'''Eddie Joe Lloyd:'''

Eddie Joe Lloyd provides a good example of an individual with a mental illness being coerced by the police. Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16 year old girl in Detroit. He had written to the police with suggestions on how to solve recent crimes and was brought in for questioning. During several interviews, the police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them find the real killer. He eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement despite his innocence. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated.

This is an example of confession contamination. From the jury's perspective, Lloyd had confessed with details that only the killer could have known. The jury was not given evidence of the police's interference. As a result of this case, Detroit Police officials agreed to begin videotaping interrogations.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

*'''Edgar Garrett:'''

Edgar Garrett presents another example of a false confession resulting from extreme interrogation and persuasion by the police. Garrett's 14 year old daughter, Michelle, was murdered. After a 14-hour interrogation, Garrett confessed. The police told him that witnesses placed him with his daughter shortly before her disappearance. One of the officers suggested to Garrett that he could have blacked out and reminded Garrett that he had once struck Michelle while drinking. Garrett, who had initially insisted that he hadn't seen Michelle before she disappeared, began to change his story and signed a confession. However, his confession contradicted all the major facts of the case and the police lacked any additional evidence. Garrett was acquitted by the jury. A partial excerpt from the transcript of his police interrogation is provided below:

'''''Interrogation Transcript'''''

'''Garrett:''' I just don't remember if I went out, if I did talk to Michelle.... I can't remember fighting with Michelle on Sunday.

'''Detective:''' You did. Not only did you fight but you thumped her. You didn't mean to hurt her.

'''G:''' What did I thump her with?

'''D:''' I don't know.

'''G:''' I don't know either.

'''D:''' But you thumped her.

'''G:''' Well, I killed my own daughter?

'''D:''' Yeah.

When Garrett kept insisting that he didn't remember attacking her, the interrogator again raised the possibility of an alcohol-induced blackout.

'''D:''' Okay, then what happened next?

'''G:''' I must have left her there.

'''D:''' Okay.

'''G:''' And must have went home.

'''D:''' All right. What did you do with the stick?

'''G:''' It's in the house. I must have took it back to the house.

This excerpt from Garrett's interrogation illustrates how interrogator's can railroad a suspect into believing they committed the crime.

== Defense Attorney Tips ==

'''Client Interview:'''

The most important step for a defense lawyer is the client interview. Always interview your client. Learn the details of your client's history. Ask about your client's medical history, educational history and any mental health issues that may exist.

Remember to approach your client as a confidant. Ask them to tell you what happened and what they remember. Do not confront them with the confession and ask them if it is true. It is important to get a statement of what they remember about the incident before asking them to corroborate a prior statement.

Next, talk to your client about the interrogation, especially if you are unable to obtain a recording. Ask how the police treated him, what happened, what he was told about the evidence, and so on. Ask if he received any promises in exchange for the confession. This is frequently an element of coerced confessions--often the police promise to go easier on the suspect if he confesses.

'''The Pre-Trial Phase:'''

The defense should try to obtain experts with knowledge of false confessions if at all possible. However, this is not always feasible. In the event that experts are not available, use the resources that you have. Direct and cross examination of witnesses, your client, and investigators can be invaluable.

The defense lawyer should bring a pre-trial motion to suppress a confession in every case, even if you are sure it will be denied. Remember to emphasize any evidence of lengthy detention and interrogation; repeated interrogations; deprivation of food, sleep, or visitors; failing to inform the suspect of his rights or misleading him; and false allegations by the police.

'''Trial:'''

At trial, begin establishing that the confession was false during the opening statement. The opening statement presents an opportunity to illustrate how the circumstances of the interrogation could have led the client to make a false confession. But remember, during the opening statement you are only supposed to be laying out what will be heard at trial, not arguing. Try to recreate the situation for the jury; bring photographs of the interrogation room and create a timeline which establishes the length of questioning. Most important, use what you have learned in interviews to effectively cross examine the prosecution's witnesses. Then put your client on the stand and let them tell their story. Remember you are trying to convince the jury that your client was overcome by police tactics to such an extent that he confessed to a crime he did not commit.

'''Final Thoughts:'''

The most effective means of combating false confessions is simply understanding them. A working knowledge of the elements and practices leading to false confessions is crucial. Thoroughly investigating any client confession is a fundamental step for every good defense attorney. Generally the best way to investigate is by obtaining recordings of the interrogation. However, not every country records interrogations.

Recording interrogations is becoming a more widespread policy. Video recordings both decrease the likelihood of false confessions and increase the validity of a confession. By rendering the interrogation process transparent, police lose any leverage to coerce innocent suspects.

----
See [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

False Confessions / Admissions

2011-02-02T11:03:41Z

Kgerber: /* Traits of Coercion, Force, and False Statements */

== Background ==

The phenomenon of false confessions is not a recent development. In the United States, false confessions date back to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. In this period, it was common for accusations of witchcraft to lead to false confessions.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

Today, false confessions are a leading cause of error in wrongful convictions. In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants have made self-incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref> Because false confessions are generally discovered through subsequent exonerations, the overall frequency of false confessions is unknown.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Persuasiveness of Confessions ==

Confessions are considered extremely persuasive evidence of guilt and are perhaps the most damaging evidence a prosecutor can present at trial.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Of crimes that are solved, the majority are solved as result of a confession obtained through police interrogation.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Despite widespread evidence that false confessions occur, juries have difficulty believing an innocent person would confess to a crime they did not commit.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Why do Innocent People Confess? ==
Most people, particularly members of the jury acting as the fact-finder, have difficulty comprehending that an innocent person may confess to a crime he did not commit. However, false confessions are not uncommon.
Some common elements that can lead to a false confession are:
*Duress
*Coercion
*Intoxication
*Diminished Capacity
*Mental Impairment
*Ignorance of the Law
*Fear of violence
*Threat of Harm
*Misunderstanding of the Situation

Understanding what can lead to a false confession is the key to recognizing one in the future.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

== Traits of Coercion, Force, and False Statements ==

Defense attorneys are responsible for investigating any confessions made by clients. Many people misunderstand coercion to include only physical torture. However, police investigators often employ psychologically coercive techniques that can also lead to false confessions. Attorneys unfamiliar with or inexperienced with false confessions may inappropriately counsel their clients to plead guilty based on the false confession to avoid harsh sentences at trial.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref> Common elements that increase the likelihood a confession is false include:

{|border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" align="center"
|-
!'''Coerced Confession'''
!'''Forced Confession'''
!'''False Confession'''
|-
|Pressure
|Physical Threats
|Youth
|-
|Deception
|Emotional Threats
|Mental Health Issues
|-
|Persuasion
|Isolation
|Linguistic Clues
|-
|Custodial
|Deprivation of Food
|Inaccurate Answers
|-
|False Promises
|Physical Contact
|Non-Responsive
|-
|False Facts
|Several Interrogators
|Contradictions
|-
|Youth
|Length of Detention
|Exaggeration
|-
|Low Self-Esteem
|Fear
|Desire to Please
|}

All of the elements listed above can contribute to a client making a false confession. Defense attorneys should obtain any evidence surrounding the confession including police recordings of the interrogation and subsequent confession. In addition, it is important to interview your client and the interrogating police officers. Ask the client what happened and look for any discrepancies between their story and the confession. Remember to never presume the client is guilty, even if they have "confessed" to the police.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Types of False Confessions ==
There are three types of false confessions: Voluntary, Compliant and Persuaded or Internalized.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Voluntary Confessions:'''

A voluntary confession is one that occurs in the absence of police coercion. Typically the individual learns about the crime and contacts the police. Sometimes it is the result of pressure from third parties or the result of a mental illness. For instance, sometimes people confess to protect the real criminal or provide an alibi for another crime. In high profile cases, voluntary confessions may result from a desire for attention or self-punishment.

Voluntary false confessions tend to be an anomaly and the result of a personal choice.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Compliant False Confessions:'''

Compliant false confessions are given in response to police coercion, stress or pressure. Compliant confessions occur when the confessor knows that he is innocent and that what he is saying is false. A variation of the compliant false confession is the coerced compliant false confession in which a confessor is convinced that he is trapped and the best solution is to confess in spite of his innocence. Typically the pressure of the interrogation process has become so overwhelming that the suspect is willing to agree to anything to avoid being questioned further. The confession is typically offered in exchange for a promise by the police, either for the defendant to return home, to end to the interview, or to protect the suspect's family. The perception from the confessor's perspective is that the immediate gain of ending interrogation outweighs the long-term consequences of confessing.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref> Many suspects do not understand that any kind of confession tends to be very persuasive to the fact-finder. Whether or not it is retracted in the future, the impact of the confession on the fact finder remains powerful.

'''Persuaded or Internalized False Confessions:'''

The third type is persuaded or internalized false confession, in which the suspect becomes convinced that he may have committed the crime. The suspect doubts his own innocence, and then is persuaded that he must have committed the crime without remembering. In this type of false confession, the suspect actually believes that he may be guilty. Memory lapses contribute to this belief, whether as a result of amnesia or other causes. Coercive tactics and techniques are used to engender self-doubt and create a false reality for the suspect. Coercive interrogation techniques will be explained in greater detail below.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Coercive Interrogation Techniques ==

The police officer's goal is to make the suspect confess. Your goal as the defense attorney is to prevent any undue coercion or bullying tactics. While most of the below factors can and probably will be present during police interrogation, any can contribute to false confessions. It is your job as the defense attorney to look for all of these factors and then evaluate whether your client was coerced on a case-by-case basis.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Coercive Tactics:'''
*Repeated Statements by Investigators of Client's Guilt
*Repeated Reminders of Memory Lapses
*Withholding Information
*Isolation from Family, Friends and/or Legal Defender
*Lengthy Interrogation
*Emotionally Intense Interrogation
*Presentation of "Scientific Evidence" without Explanation
*Creating a Hostile Environment, where the Accused Fears Denying Guilt
*Physical Threats or Physical Abuse

As the defender, it is your responsibility to look for evidence of any coercion. All legal defenders should be present during interrogation. If you cannot be physically present, try to obtain any recordings of the interrogation and look for coercion. Recordings are the best way to decrease the likelihood of false confessions. They have been shown to decrease coercion and increase the reliability of confessions as evidence. Be sure to listen for any prevarications by your client, such as:

'''Typical Prevarications:'''
*"I guess I must have . . ."
*"I think I did this next . . ."
*"If what you said is true, then . . ."
*"I just want to get this over with . . ."
*"If I tell you what happened, can I go home?"

Any of the above phrases point to coercion and uncertainty, but remember to evaluate the confession as a whole, not individual statements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Confession Contamination ==

One of the problems with false confessions is that the confession often includes details that theoretically only the perpetrator should know. But, often the police supply details of the crime during interrogation to encourage confession. As a result, the confessor appears guilty because of his perceived knowledge of the crime. This issue is particularly problematic when presented to a jury.

=== Case Studies ===

*'''Eddie Joe Lloyd:'''

Eddie Joe Lloyd provides a good example of an individual with a mental illness being coerced by the police. Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16 year old girl in Detroit. He had written to the police with suggestions on how to solve recent crimes and was brought in for questioning. During several interviews, the police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them find the real killer. He eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement despite his innocence. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated.

This is an example of confession contamination. From the jury's perspective, Lloyd had confessed with details that only the killer could have known. The jury was not given evidence of the police's interference. As a result of this case, Detroit Police officials agreed to begin videotaping interrogations.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

*'''Edgar Garrett:'''

Edgar Garrett presents another example of a false confession resulting from extreme interrogation and persuasion by the police. Garrett's 14 year old daughter, Michelle, was murdered. After a 14-hour interrogation, Garrett confessed. The police told him that witnesses placed him with his daughter shortly before her disappearance. One of the officers suggested to Garrett that he could have blacked out and reminded Garrett that he had once struck Michelle while drinking. Garrett, who had initially insisted that he hadn't seen Michelle before she disappeared, began to change his story and signed a confession. However, his confession contradicted all the major facts of the case and the police lacked any additional evidence. Garrett was acquitted by the jury. A partial excerpt from the transcript of his police interrogation is provided below:

'''''Interrogation Transcript'''''

'''Garrett:''' I just don't remember if I went out, if I did talk to Michelle.... I can't remember fighting with Michelle on Sunday.

'''Detective:''' You did. Not only did you fight but you thumped her. You didn't mean to hurt her.

'''G:''' What did I thump her with?

'''D:''' I don't know.

'''G:''' I don't know either.

'''D:''' But you thumped her.

'''G:''' Well, I killed my own daughter?

'''D:''' Yeah.

When Garrett kept insisting that he didn't remember attacking her, the interrogator again raised the possibility of an alcohol-induced blackout.

'''D:''' Okay, then what happened next?

'''G:''' I must have left her there.

'''D:''' Okay.

'''G:''' And must have went home.

'''D:''' All right. What did you do with the stick?

'''G:''' It's in the house. I must have took it back to the house.

This excerpt from Garrett's interrogation illustrates how interrogator's can railroad a suspect into believing they committed the crime.

== Defense Attorney Tips ==

'''Client Interview:'''

The most important step for a defense lawyer is the client interview. Always interview your client. Learn the details of your client's history. Ask about your client's medical history, educational history and any mental health issues that may exist.

Remember to approach your client as a confidant. Ask them to tell you what happened and what they remember. Do not confront them with the confession and ask them if it is true. It is important to get a statement of what they remember about the incident before asking them to corroborate a prior statement.

Next, talk to your client about the interrogation, especially if you are unable to obtain a recording. Ask how the police treated him, what happened, what he was told about the evidence, and so on. Ask if he received any promises in exchange for the confession. This is frequently an element of coerced confessions--often the police promise to go easier on the suspect if he confesses.

'''The Pre-Trial Phase:'''

The defense should try to obtain experts with knowledge of false confessions if at all possible. However, this is not always feasible. In the event that experts are not available, use the resources that you have. Direct and cross examination of witnesses, your client, and investigators can be invaluable.

The defense lawyer should bring a pre-trial motion to suppress a confession in every case, even if you are sure it will be denied. Remember to emphasize any evidence of lengthy detention and interrogation; repeated interrogations; deprivation of food, sleep, or visitors; failing to inform the suspect of his rights or misleading him; and false allegations by the police.

'''Trial:'''

At trial, begin establishing that the confession was false during the opening statement. The opening statement presents an opportunity to illustrate how the circumstances of the interrogation could have led the client to make a false confession. But remember, during the opening statement you are only supposed to be laying out what will be heard at trial, not arguing. Try to recreate the situation for the jury; bring photographs of the interrogation room and create a timeline which establishes the length of questioning. Most important, use what you have learned in interviews to effectively cross examine the prosecution's witnesses. Then put your client on the stand and let them tell their story. Remember you are trying to convince the jury that your client was overcome by police tactics to such an extent that he confessed to a crime he did not commit.

'''Final Thoughts:'''

The most effective means of combating false confessions is simply understanding them. A working knowledge of the elements and practices leading to false confessions is crucial. Thoroughly investigating any client confession is a fundamental step for every good defense attorney. Generally the best way to investigate is by obtaining recordings of the interrogation. However, not every country records interrogations.

Recording interrogations is becoming a more widespread policy. Video recordings both decrease the likelihood of false confessions and increase the validity of a confession. By rendering the interrogation process transparent, police lose any leverage to coerce innocent suspects.

----
See [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

False Confessions / Admissions

2011-02-02T10:55:48Z

Kgerber: /* Why do Suspects Confess? */

== Background ==

The phenomenon of false confessions is not a recent development. In the United States, false confessions date back to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. In this period, it was common for accusations of witchcraft to lead to false confessions.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

Today, false confessions are a leading cause of error in wrongful convictions. In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants have made self-incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref> Because false confessions are generally discovered through subsequent exonerations, the overall frequency of false confessions is unknown.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Persuasiveness of Confessions ==

Confessions are considered extremely persuasive evidence of guilt and are perhaps the most damaging evidence a prosecutor can present at trial.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Of crimes that are solved, the majority are solved as result of a confession obtained through police interrogation.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Despite widespread evidence that false confessions occur, juries have difficulty believing an innocent person would confess to a crime they did not commit.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Why do Innocent People Confess? ==
Most people, particularly members of the jury acting as the fact-finder, have difficulty comprehending that an innocent person may confess to a crime he did not commit. However, false confessions are not uncommon.
Some common elements that can lead to a false confession are:
*Duress
*Coercion
*Intoxication
*Diminished Capacity
*Mental Impairment
*Ignorance of the Law
*Fear of violence
*Threat of Harm
*Misunderstanding of the Situation

Understanding what can lead to a false confession is the key to recognizing one in the future.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

== Traits of Coercion, Force, and False Statements ==

Defense attorneys are responsible for investigating any confessions made by clients. Many people misunderstand coercion to include only physical torture. However, police investigators often employ psychologically coercive techniques that can lead to false confessions. In addition, attorneys lacking knowledge or experience with false confessions may inappropriately counsel their clients to plead guilty to avoid harsh sentences at trial.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref> Common elements that increase the likelihood a confession is false include:

{|border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" align="center"
|-
!'''Coerced Confession'''
!'''Forced Confession'''
!'''False Confession'''
|-
|Pressure
|Physical Threats
|Youth
|-
|Deception
|Emotional Threats
|Mental Health Issues
|-
|Persuasion
|Isolation
|Linguistic Clues
|-
|Custodial
|Deprived of Food
|Inaccurate Answers
|-
|False Promises
|Physical Contact
|Non-Responsive
|-
|False Facts
|Several Interrogators
|Contradictory
|-
|Youth
|Length of Holding
|Exaggerated
|-
|Low Self-Esteem
|Fear
|Desire to Please
|}

All of the elements listed above can contribute to a client making a false confession. To investigate, obtain any evidence of the confession. Look for police recordings of the interrogation and subsequent confession. Interview your client and the police officers. Ask the client what happened and look for any discrepancies between their story and the confession. Remember to never presume the client is guilty, even if they have "confessed" to the police.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Types of False Confessions ==
There are three types of false confessions: Voluntary, Compliant and Persuaded or Internalized.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Voluntary Confessions:'''

A voluntary confession is one that occurs in the absence of police coercion. Typically the individual learns about the crime and contacts the police. Sometimes it is the result of pressure from third parties or the result of a mental illness. For instance, sometimes people confess to protect the real criminal or provide an alibi for another crime. In high profile cases, voluntary confessions may result from a desire for attention or self-punishment.

Voluntary false confessions tend to be an anomaly and the result of a personal choice.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Compliant False Confessions:'''

Compliant false confessions are given in response to police coercion, stress or pressure. Compliant confessions occur when the confessor knows that he is innocent and that what he is saying is false. A variation of the compliant false confession is the coerced compliant false confession in which a confessor is convinced that he is trapped and the best solution is to confess in spite of his innocence. Typically the pressure of the interrogation process has become so overwhelming that the suspect is willing to agree to anything to avoid being questioned further. The confession is typically offered in exchange for a promise by the police, either for the defendant to return home, to end to the interview, or to protect the suspect's family. The perception from the confessor's perspective is that the immediate gain of ending interrogation outweighs the long-term consequences of confessing.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref> Many suspects do not understand that any kind of confession tends to be very persuasive to the fact-finder. Whether or not it is retracted in the future, the impact of the confession on the fact finder remains powerful.

'''Persuaded or Internalized False Confessions:'''

The third type is persuaded or internalized false confession, in which the suspect becomes convinced that he may have committed the crime. The suspect doubts his own innocence, and then is persuaded that he must have committed the crime without remembering. In this type of false confession, the suspect actually believes that he may be guilty. Memory lapses contribute to this belief, whether as a result of amnesia or other causes. Coercive tactics and techniques are used to engender self-doubt and create a false reality for the suspect. Coercive interrogation techniques will be explained in greater detail below.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Coercive Interrogation Techniques ==

The police officer's goal is to make the suspect confess. Your goal as the defense attorney is to prevent any undue coercion or bullying tactics. While most of the below factors can and probably will be present during police interrogation, any can contribute to false confessions. It is your job as the defense attorney to look for all of these factors and then evaluate whether your client was coerced on a case-by-case basis.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Coercive Tactics:'''
*Repeated Statements by Investigators of Client's Guilt
*Repeated Reminders of Memory Lapses
*Withholding Information
*Isolation from Family, Friends and/or Legal Defender
*Lengthy Interrogation
*Emotionally Intense Interrogation
*Presentation of "Scientific Evidence" without Explanation
*Creating a Hostile Environment, where the Accused Fears Denying Guilt
*Physical Threats or Physical Abuse

As the defender, it is your responsibility to look for evidence of any coercion. All legal defenders should be present during interrogation. If you cannot be physically present, try to obtain any recordings of the interrogation and look for coercion. Recordings are the best way to decrease the likelihood of false confessions. They have been shown to decrease coercion and increase the reliability of confessions as evidence. Be sure to listen for any prevarications by your client, such as:

'''Typical Prevarications:'''
*"I guess I must have . . ."
*"I think I did this next . . ."
*"If what you said is true, then . . ."
*"I just want to get this over with . . ."
*"If I tell you what happened, can I go home?"

Any of the above phrases point to coercion and uncertainty, but remember to evaluate the confession as a whole, not individual statements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Confession Contamination ==

One of the problems with false confessions is that the confession often includes details that theoretically only the perpetrator should know. But, often the police supply details of the crime during interrogation to encourage confession. As a result, the confessor appears guilty because of his perceived knowledge of the crime. This issue is particularly problematic when presented to a jury.

=== Case Studies ===

*'''Eddie Joe Lloyd:'''

Eddie Joe Lloyd provides a good example of an individual with a mental illness being coerced by the police. Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16 year old girl in Detroit. He had written to the police with suggestions on how to solve recent crimes and was brought in for questioning. During several interviews, the police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them find the real killer. He eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement despite his innocence. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated.

This is an example of confession contamination. From the jury's perspective, Lloyd had confessed with details that only the killer could have known. The jury was not given evidence of the police's interference. As a result of this case, Detroit Police officials agreed to begin videotaping interrogations.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

*'''Edgar Garrett:'''

Edgar Garrett presents another example of a false confession resulting from extreme interrogation and persuasion by the police. Garrett's 14 year old daughter, Michelle, was murdered. After a 14-hour interrogation, Garrett confessed. The police told him that witnesses placed him with his daughter shortly before her disappearance. One of the officers suggested to Garrett that he could have blacked out and reminded Garrett that he had once struck Michelle while drinking. Garrett, who had initially insisted that he hadn't seen Michelle before she disappeared, began to change his story and signed a confession. However, his confession contradicted all the major facts of the case and the police lacked any additional evidence. Garrett was acquitted by the jury. A partial excerpt from the transcript of his police interrogation is provided below:

'''''Interrogation Transcript'''''

'''Garrett:''' I just don't remember if I went out, if I did talk to Michelle.... I can't remember fighting with Michelle on Sunday.

'''Detective:''' You did. Not only did you fight but you thumped her. You didn't mean to hurt her.

'''G:''' What did I thump her with?

'''D:''' I don't know.

'''G:''' I don't know either.

'''D:''' But you thumped her.

'''G:''' Well, I killed my own daughter?

'''D:''' Yeah.

When Garrett kept insisting that he didn't remember attacking her, the interrogator again raised the possibility of an alcohol-induced blackout.

'''D:''' Okay, then what happened next?

'''G:''' I must have left her there.

'''D:''' Okay.

'''G:''' And must have went home.

'''D:''' All right. What did you do with the stick?

'''G:''' It's in the house. I must have took it back to the house.

This excerpt from Garrett's interrogation illustrates how interrogator's can railroad a suspect into believing they committed the crime.

== Defense Attorney Tips ==

'''Client Interview:'''

The most important step for a defense lawyer is the client interview. Always interview your client. Learn the details of your client's history. Ask about your client's medical history, educational history and any mental health issues that may exist.

Remember to approach your client as a confidant. Ask them to tell you what happened and what they remember. Do not confront them with the confession and ask them if it is true. It is important to get a statement of what they remember about the incident before asking them to corroborate a prior statement.

Next, talk to your client about the interrogation, especially if you are unable to obtain a recording. Ask how the police treated him, what happened, what he was told about the evidence, and so on. Ask if he received any promises in exchange for the confession. This is frequently an element of coerced confessions--often the police promise to go easier on the suspect if he confesses.

'''The Pre-Trial Phase:'''

The defense should try to obtain experts with knowledge of false confessions if at all possible. However, this is not always feasible. In the event that experts are not available, use the resources that you have. Direct and cross examination of witnesses, your client, and investigators can be invaluable.

The defense lawyer should bring a pre-trial motion to suppress a confession in every case, even if you are sure it will be denied. Remember to emphasize any evidence of lengthy detention and interrogation; repeated interrogations; deprivation of food, sleep, or visitors; failing to inform the suspect of his rights or misleading him; and false allegations by the police.

'''Trial:'''

At trial, begin establishing that the confession was false during the opening statement. The opening statement presents an opportunity to illustrate how the circumstances of the interrogation could have led the client to make a false confession. But remember, during the opening statement you are only supposed to be laying out what will be heard at trial, not arguing. Try to recreate the situation for the jury; bring photographs of the interrogation room and create a timeline which establishes the length of questioning. Most important, use what you have learned in interviews to effectively cross examine the prosecution's witnesses. Then put your client on the stand and let them tell their story. Remember you are trying to convince the jury that your client was overcome by police tactics to such an extent that he confessed to a crime he did not commit.

'''Final Thoughts:'''

The most effective means of combating false confessions is simply understanding them. A working knowledge of the elements and practices leading to false confessions is crucial. Thoroughly investigating any client confession is a fundamental step for every good defense attorney. Generally the best way to investigate is by obtaining recordings of the interrogation. However, not every country records interrogations.

Recording interrogations is becoming a more widespread policy. Video recordings both decrease the likelihood of false confessions and increase the validity of a confession. By rendering the interrogation process transparent, police lose any leverage to coerce innocent suspects.

----
See [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

False Confessions / Admissions

2011-02-02T10:53:59Z

Kgerber:

== Background ==

The phenomenon of false confessions is not a recent development. In the United States, false confessions date back to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. In this period, it was common for accusations of witchcraft to lead to false confessions.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

Today, false confessions are a leading cause of error in wrongful convictions. In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants have made self-incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref> Because false confessions are generally discovered through subsequent exonerations, the overall frequency of false confessions is unknown.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Persuasiveness of Confessions ==

Confessions are considered extremely persuasive evidence of guilt and are perhaps the most damaging evidence a prosecutor can present at trial.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Of crimes that are solved, the majority are solved as result of a confession obtained through police interrogation.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Despite widespread evidence that false confessions occur, juries have difficulty believing an innocent person would confess to a crime they did not commit.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Why do Suspects Confess? ==
Most people, particularly members of the jury acting as the fact-finder, have difficulty comprehending that an innocent person may confess to a crime he did not commit. However, false confessions are not uncommon.
Some common elements that can lead to a false confession are:
*Duress
*Coercion
*Intoxication
*Diminished Capacity
*Mental Impairment
*Ignorance of the Law
*Fear of violence
*Threat of Harm
*Misunderstanding of the Situation

Understanding what can lead to a false confession is the key to recognizing one in the future.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

== Traits of Coercion, Force, and False Statements ==

Defense attorneys are responsible for investigating any confessions made by clients. Many people misunderstand coercion to include only physical torture. However, police investigators often employ psychologically coercive techniques that can lead to false confessions. In addition, attorneys lacking knowledge or experience with false confessions may inappropriately counsel their clients to plead guilty to avoid harsh sentences at trial.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref> Common elements that increase the likelihood a confession is false include:

{|border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" align="center"
|-
!'''Coerced Confession'''
!'''Forced Confession'''
!'''False Confession'''
|-
|Pressure
|Physical Threats
|Youth
|-
|Deception
|Emotional Threats
|Mental Health Issues
|-
|Persuasion
|Isolation
|Linguistic Clues
|-
|Custodial
|Deprived of Food
|Inaccurate Answers
|-
|False Promises
|Physical Contact
|Non-Responsive
|-
|False Facts
|Several Interrogators
|Contradictory
|-
|Youth
|Length of Holding
|Exaggerated
|-
|Low Self-Esteem
|Fear
|Desire to Please
|}

All of the elements listed above can contribute to a client making a false confession. To investigate, obtain any evidence of the confession. Look for police recordings of the interrogation and subsequent confession. Interview your client and the police officers. Ask the client what happened and look for any discrepancies between their story and the confession. Remember to never presume the client is guilty, even if they have "confessed" to the police.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Types of False Confessions ==
There are three types of false confessions: Voluntary, Compliant and Persuaded or Internalized.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Voluntary Confessions:'''

A voluntary confession is one that occurs in the absence of police coercion. Typically the individual learns about the crime and contacts the police. Sometimes it is the result of pressure from third parties or the result of a mental illness. For instance, sometimes people confess to protect the real criminal or provide an alibi for another crime. In high profile cases, voluntary confessions may result from a desire for attention or self-punishment.

Voluntary false confessions tend to be an anomaly and the result of a personal choice.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Compliant False Confessions:'''

Compliant false confessions are given in response to police coercion, stress or pressure. Compliant confessions occur when the confessor knows that he is innocent and that what he is saying is false. A variation of the compliant false confession is the coerced compliant false confession in which a confessor is convinced that he is trapped and the best solution is to confess in spite of his innocence. Typically the pressure of the interrogation process has become so overwhelming that the suspect is willing to agree to anything to avoid being questioned further. The confession is typically offered in exchange for a promise by the police, either for the defendant to return home, to end to the interview, or to protect the suspect's family. The perception from the confessor's perspective is that the immediate gain of ending interrogation outweighs the long-term consequences of confessing.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref> Many suspects do not understand that any kind of confession tends to be very persuasive to the fact-finder. Whether or not it is retracted in the future, the impact of the confession on the fact finder remains powerful.

'''Persuaded or Internalized False Confessions:'''

The third type is persuaded or internalized false confession, in which the suspect becomes convinced that he may have committed the crime. The suspect doubts his own innocence, and then is persuaded that he must have committed the crime without remembering. In this type of false confession, the suspect actually believes that he may be guilty. Memory lapses contribute to this belief, whether as a result of amnesia or other causes. Coercive tactics and techniques are used to engender self-doubt and create a false reality for the suspect. Coercive interrogation techniques will be explained in greater detail below.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Coercive Interrogation Techniques ==

The police officer's goal is to make the suspect confess. Your goal as the defense attorney is to prevent any undue coercion or bullying tactics. While most of the below factors can and probably will be present during police interrogation, any can contribute to false confessions. It is your job as the defense attorney to look for all of these factors and then evaluate whether your client was coerced on a case-by-case basis.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Coercive Tactics:'''
*Repeated Statements by Investigators of Client's Guilt
*Repeated Reminders of Memory Lapses
*Withholding Information
*Isolation from Family, Friends and/or Legal Defender
*Lengthy Interrogation
*Emotionally Intense Interrogation
*Presentation of "Scientific Evidence" without Explanation
*Creating a Hostile Environment, where the Accused Fears Denying Guilt
*Physical Threats or Physical Abuse

As the defender, it is your responsibility to look for evidence of any coercion. All legal defenders should be present during interrogation. If you cannot be physically present, try to obtain any recordings of the interrogation and look for coercion. Recordings are the best way to decrease the likelihood of false confessions. They have been shown to decrease coercion and increase the reliability of confessions as evidence. Be sure to listen for any prevarications by your client, such as:

'''Typical Prevarications:'''
*"I guess I must have . . ."
*"I think I did this next . . ."
*"If what you said is true, then . . ."
*"I just want to get this over with . . ."
*"If I tell you what happened, can I go home?"

Any of the above phrases point to coercion and uncertainty, but remember to evaluate the confession as a whole, not individual statements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Confession Contamination ==

One of the problems with false confessions is that the confession often includes details that theoretically only the perpetrator should know. But, often the police supply details of the crime during interrogation to encourage confession. As a result, the confessor appears guilty because of his perceived knowledge of the crime. This issue is particularly problematic when presented to a jury.

=== Case Studies ===

*'''Eddie Joe Lloyd:'''

Eddie Joe Lloyd provides a good example of an individual with a mental illness being coerced by the police. Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16 year old girl in Detroit. He had written to the police with suggestions on how to solve recent crimes and was brought in for questioning. During several interviews, the police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them find the real killer. He eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement despite his innocence. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated.

This is an example of confession contamination. From the jury's perspective, Lloyd had confessed with details that only the killer could have known. The jury was not given evidence of the police's interference. As a result of this case, Detroit Police officials agreed to begin videotaping interrogations.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

*'''Edgar Garrett:'''

Edgar Garrett presents another example of a false confession resulting from extreme interrogation and persuasion by the police. Garrett's 14 year old daughter, Michelle, was murdered. After a 14-hour interrogation, Garrett confessed. The police told him that witnesses placed him with his daughter shortly before her disappearance. One of the officers suggested to Garrett that he could have blacked out and reminded Garrett that he had once struck Michelle while drinking. Garrett, who had initially insisted that he hadn't seen Michelle before she disappeared, began to change his story and signed a confession. However, his confession contradicted all the major facts of the case and the police lacked any additional evidence. Garrett was acquitted by the jury. A partial excerpt from the transcript of his police interrogation is provided below:

'''''Interrogation Transcript'''''

'''Garrett:''' I just don't remember if I went out, if I did talk to Michelle.... I can't remember fighting with Michelle on Sunday.

'''Detective:''' You did. Not only did you fight but you thumped her. You didn't mean to hurt her.

'''G:''' What did I thump her with?

'''D:''' I don't know.

'''G:''' I don't know either.

'''D:''' But you thumped her.

'''G:''' Well, I killed my own daughter?

'''D:''' Yeah.

When Garrett kept insisting that he didn't remember attacking her, the interrogator again raised the possibility of an alcohol-induced blackout.

'''D:''' Okay, then what happened next?

'''G:''' I must have left her there.

'''D:''' Okay.

'''G:''' And must have went home.

'''D:''' All right. What did you do with the stick?

'''G:''' It's in the house. I must have took it back to the house.

This excerpt from Garrett's interrogation illustrates how interrogator's can railroad a suspect into believing they committed the crime.

== Defense Attorney Tips ==

'''Client Interview:'''

The most important step for a defense lawyer is the client interview. Always interview your client. Learn the details of your client's history. Ask about your client's medical history, educational history and any mental health issues that may exist.

Remember to approach your client as a confidant. Ask them to tell you what happened and what they remember. Do not confront them with the confession and ask them if it is true. It is important to get a statement of what they remember about the incident before asking them to corroborate a prior statement.

Next, talk to your client about the interrogation, especially if you are unable to obtain a recording. Ask how the police treated him, what happened, what he was told about the evidence, and so on. Ask if he received any promises in exchange for the confession. This is frequently an element of coerced confessions--often the police promise to go easier on the suspect if he confesses.

'''The Pre-Trial Phase:'''

The defense should try to obtain experts with knowledge of false confessions if at all possible. However, this is not always feasible. In the event that experts are not available, use the resources that you have. Direct and cross examination of witnesses, your client, and investigators can be invaluable.

The defense lawyer should bring a pre-trial motion to suppress a confession in every case, even if you are sure it will be denied. Remember to emphasize any evidence of lengthy detention and interrogation; repeated interrogations; deprivation of food, sleep, or visitors; failing to inform the suspect of his rights or misleading him; and false allegations by the police.

'''Trial:'''

At trial, begin establishing that the confession was false during the opening statement. The opening statement presents an opportunity to illustrate how the circumstances of the interrogation could have led the client to make a false confession. But remember, during the opening statement you are only supposed to be laying out what will be heard at trial, not arguing. Try to recreate the situation for the jury; bring photographs of the interrogation room and create a timeline which establishes the length of questioning. Most important, use what you have learned in interviews to effectively cross examine the prosecution's witnesses. Then put your client on the stand and let them tell their story. Remember you are trying to convince the jury that your client was overcome by police tactics to such an extent that he confessed to a crime he did not commit.

'''Final Thoughts:'''

The most effective means of combating false confessions is simply understanding them. A working knowledge of the elements and practices leading to false confessions is crucial. Thoroughly investigating any client confession is a fundamental step for every good defense attorney. Generally the best way to investigate is by obtaining recordings of the interrogation. However, not every country records interrogations.

Recording interrogations is becoming a more widespread policy. Video recordings both decrease the likelihood of false confessions and increase the validity of a confession. By rendering the interrogation process transparent, police lose any leverage to coerce innocent suspects.

----
See [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

False Confessions / Admissions

2011-01-21T13:30:23Z

Kgerber:

== Background ==

The phenomenon of false confessions is not a recent development. In the United States, false confessions date back to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. In this period, it was common for accusations of witchcraft to lead to false confessions.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

Today, false confessions are a leading cause of error in wrongful convictions. In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants have made self-incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref> Because false confessions are generally discovered through subsequent exonerations, the overall frequency of false confessions is unknown.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Persuasiveness of Confessions ==

Confessions are considered extremely persuasive evidence of guilt and are perhaps the most damaging evidence a prosecutor can present at trial.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Of crimes that are solved, the majority are solved as result of a confession obtained through police interrogation.<ref>Richard P. Conti, The Psychology of False Confessions, The Journal of Credibility Assessment, Vol. 2., No. 1, p.14, pp.14-15 (1999) available at http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf.</ref> Despite widespread evidence that false confessions occur, juries have difficulty believing an innocent person would confess to a crime they did not commit.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

Many people misunderstand coercion to include only physical torture. However, police investigators often employ psychologically coercive techniques that can lead to false confessions. In addition, attorneys lacking knowledge or experience with false confessions may inappropriately counsel their clients to plead guilty to avoid harsh sentences at trial.<ref>Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:4, 249 (2008) available at http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20%282008%29%20-%20APS%20CD.pdf.</ref>

== Why do Suspects Confess? ==
The mystery of a suspect confessing to a crime he didn't commit perplexes most people. Most people, particularly members of the jury acting as the fact-finder, have difficulty comprehending that an innocent person may confess to a crime he did not commit. However, it happens. People confess all the time.
Some common elements that lead to a false confession are:
*Duress
*Coercion
*Intoxication
*Diminished Capacity
*Mental Impairment
*Ignorance of the Law
*Fear of violence
*Threat of Harm
*Misunderstanding of the Situation

Understanding what can lead to a false confession is the key to recognizing one in the future.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

== Traits of Coercion, Force, and False Statements ==

A defense attorney's responsibility includes investigating any confessions by clients. It is important to look for specific elements of coercion, force and false statements. Elements include:

{|border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" align="center"
|-
!'''Coerced Confession'''
!'''Forced Confession'''
!'''False Confession'''
|-
|Pressure
|Physical Threats
|Youth
|-
|Deception
|Emotional Threats
|Mental Health Issues
|-
|Persuasion
|Isolation
|Linguistic Clues
|-
|Custodial
|Deprived of Food
|Inaccurate Answers
|-
|False Promises
|Physical Contact
|Non-Responsive
|-
|False Facts
|Several Interrogators
|Contradictory
|-
|Youth
|Length of Holding
|Exaggerated
|-
|Low Self-Esteem
|Fear
|Desire to Please
|}

All of the elements listed above can contribute to a client making a false confession. To investigate, obtain any evidence of the confession. Look for police recordings of the interrogation and subsequent confession. Interview your client and the police officers. Ask the client what happened and look for any discrepancies between their story and the confession. Remember to never presume the client is guilty, even if they have "confessed" to the police.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Types of False Confessions ==
There are three types of false confessions: Voluntary, Compliant and Persuaded or Internalized.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Voluntary Confessions:'''

A voluntary confession is one that occurs in the absence of police coercion. Typically the individual learns about the crime and contacts the police. Sometimes it is the result of pressure from third parties or the result of a mental illness. For instance, sometimes people confess to protect the real criminal or provide an alibi for another crime. In high profile cases, voluntary confessions may result from a desire for attention or self-punishment.

Voluntary false confessions tend to be an anomaly and the result of a personal choice.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Compliant False Confessions:'''

Compliant false confessions are given in response to police coercion, stress or pressure. Compliant confessions occur when the confessor knows that he is innocent and that what he is saying is false. A variation of the compliant false confession is the coerced compliant false confession in which a confessor is convinced that he is trapped and the best solution is to confess in spite of his innocence. Typically the pressure of the interrogation process has become so overwhelming that the suspect is willing to agree to anything to avoid being questioned further. The confession is typically offered in exchange for a promise by the police, either for the defendant to return home, to end to the interview, or to protect the suspect's family. The perception from the confessor's perspective is that the immediate gain of ending interrogation outweighs the long-term consequences of confessing.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref> Many suspects do not understand that any kind of confession tends to be very persuasive to the fact-finder. Whether or not it is retracted in the future, the impact of the confession on the fact finder remains powerful.

'''Persuaded or Internalized False Confessions:'''

The third type is persuaded or internalized false confession, in which the suspect becomes convinced that he may have committed the crime. The suspect doubts his own innocence, and then is persuaded that he must have committed the crime without remembering. In this type of false confession, the suspect actually believes that he may be guilty. Memory lapses contribute to this belief, whether as a result of amnesia or other causes. Coercive tactics and techniques are used to engender self-doubt and create a false reality for the suspect. Coercive interrogation techniques will be explained in greater detail below.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Coercive Interrogation Techniques ==

The police officer's goal is to make the suspect confess. Your goal as the defense attorney is to prevent any undue coercion or bullying tactics. While most of the below factors can and probably will be present during police interrogation, any can contribute to false confessions. It is your job as the defense attorney to look for all of these factors and then evaluate whether your client was coerced on a case-by-case basis.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

'''Coercive Tactics:'''
*Repeated Statements by Investigators of Client's Guilt
*Repeated Reminders of Memory Lapses
*Withholding Information
*Isolation from Family, Friends and/or Legal Defender
*Lengthy Interrogation
*Emotionally Intense Interrogation
*Presentation of "Scientific Evidence" without Explanation
*Creating a Hostile Environment, where the Accused Fears Denying Guilt
*Physical Threats or Physical Abuse

As the defender, it is your responsibility to look for evidence of any coercion. All legal defenders should be present during interrogation. If you cannot be physically present, try to obtain any recordings of the interrogation and look for coercion. Recordings are the best way to decrease the likelihood of false confessions. They have been shown to decrease coercion and increase the reliability of confessions as evidence. Be sure to listen for any prevarications by your client, such as:

'''Typical Prevarications:'''
*"I guess I must have . . ."
*"I think I did this next . . ."
*"If what you said is true, then . . ."
*"I just want to get this over with . . ."
*"If I tell you what happened, can I go home?"

Any of the above phrases point to coercion and uncertainty, but remember to evaluate the confession as a whole, not individual statements.<ref>International Bridges to Justice: Vietnam Hanoi Criminal Defense Training Program Materials(2004).</ref>

== Confession Contamination ==

One of the problems with false confessions is that the confession often includes details that theoretically only the perpetrator should know. But, often the police supply details of the crime during interrogation to encourage confession. As a result, the confessor appears guilty because of his perceived knowledge of the crime. This issue is particularly problematic when presented to a jury.

=== Case Studies ===

*'''Eddie Joe Lloyd:'''

Eddie Joe Lloyd provides a good example of an individual with a mental illness being coerced by the police. Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16 year old girl in Detroit. He had written to the police with suggestions on how to solve recent crimes and was brought in for questioning. During several interviews, the police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them find the real killer. He eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement despite his innocence. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated.

This is an example of confession contamination. From the jury's perspective, Lloyd had confessed with details that only the killer could have known. The jury was not given evidence of the police's interference. As a result of this case, Detroit Police officials agreed to begin videotaping interrogations.<ref>Innocence Project Website: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php]</ref>

*'''Edgar Garrett:'''

Edgar Garrett presents another example of a false confession resulting from extreme interrogation and persuasion by the police. Garrett's 14 year old daughter, Michelle, was murdered. After a 14-hour interrogation, Garrett confessed. The police told him that witnesses placed him with his daughter shortly before her disappearance. One of the officers suggested to Garrett that he could have blacked out and reminded Garrett that he had once struck Michelle while drinking. Garrett, who had initially insisted that he hadn't seen Michelle before she disappeared, began to change his story and signed a confession. However, his confession contradicted all the major facts of the case and the police lacked any additional evidence. Garrett was acquitted by the jury. A partial excerpt from the transcript of his police interrogation is provided below:

'''''Interrogation Transcript'''''

'''Garrett:''' I just don't remember if I went out, if I did talk to Michelle.... I can't remember fighting with Michelle on Sunday.

'''Detective:''' You did. Not only did you fight but you thumped her. You didn't mean to hurt her.

'''G:''' What did I thump her with?

'''D:''' I don't know.

'''G:''' I don't know either.

'''D:''' But you thumped her.

'''G:''' Well, I killed my own daughter?

'''D:''' Yeah.

When Garrett kept insisting that he didn't remember attacking her, the interrogator again raised the possibility of an alcohol-induced blackout.

'''D:''' Okay, then what happened next?

'''G:''' I must have left her there.

'''D:''' Okay.

'''G:''' And must have went home.

'''D:''' All right. What did you do with the stick?

'''G:''' It's in the house. I must have took it back to the house.

This excerpt from Garrett's interrogation illustrates how interrogator's can railroad a suspect into believing they committed the crime.

== Defense Attorney Tips ==

'''Client Interview:'''

The most important step for a defense lawyer is the client interview. Always interview your client. Learn the details of your client's history. Ask about your client's medical history, educational history and any mental health issues that may exist.

Remember to approach your client as a confidant. Ask them to tell you what happened and what they remember. Do not confront them with the confession and ask them if it is true. It is important to get a statement of what they remember about the incident before asking them to corroborate a prior statement.

Next, talk to your client about the interrogation, especially if you are unable to obtain a recording. Ask how the police treated him, what happened, what he was told about the evidence, and so on. Ask if he received any promises in exchange for the confession. This is frequently an element of coerced confessions--often the police promise to go easier on the suspect if he confesses.

'''The Pre-Trial Phase:'''

The defense should try to obtain experts with knowledge of false confessions if at all possible. However, this is not always feasible. In the event that experts are not available, use the resources that you have. Direct and cross examination of witnesses, your client, and investigators can be invaluable.

The defense lawyer should bring a pre-trial motion to suppress a confession in every case, even if you are sure it will be denied. Remember to emphasize any evidence of lengthy detention and interrogation; repeated interrogations; deprivation of food, sleep, or visitors; failing to inform the suspect of his rights or misleading him; and false allegations by the police.

'''Trial:'''

At trial, begin establishing that the confession was false during the opening statement. The opening statement presents an opportunity to illustrate how the circumstances of the interrogation could have led the client to make a false confession. But remember, during the opening statement you are only supposed to be laying out what will be heard at trial, not arguing. Try to recreate the situation for the jury; bring photographs of the interrogation room and create a timeline which establishes the length of questioning. Most important, use what you have learned in interviews to effectively cross examine the prosecution's witnesses. Then put your client on the stand and let them tell their story. Remember you are trying to convince the jury that your client was overcome by police tactics to such an extent that he confessed to a crime he did not commit.

'''Final Thoughts:'''

The most effective means of combating false confessions is simply understanding them. A working knowledge of the elements and practices leading to false confessions is crucial. Thoroughly investigating any client confession is a fundamental step for every good defense attorney. Generally the best way to investigate is by obtaining recordings of the interrogation. However, not every country records interrogations.

Recording interrogations is becoming a more widespread policy. Video recordings both decrease the likelihood of false confessions and increase the validity of a confession. By rendering the interrogation process transparent, police lose any leverage to coerce innocent suspects.

----
See [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions]]

== Notes ==
<references/>