2010 Manual on Recurring Problems in Criminal Trials

Federal Judicial Center (FJC), created in 1967, is the education and research agency for the federal courts. On its website it provides information about its publications & videos, international judicial relations, federal judiciary history, and educational programs & materials.  Recently, it has published the sixth edition of the Manual on Recurring Problems in Criminal Trials.

This Manual is not meant to be a comprehensive treatise on criminal law, but rather a basic guide to the law governing many of the procedural matters that arise frequently in criminal trials.  Consequently, it should not be cited as authority in opinions or other materials, nor should the case summaries, which have been updated through August 15, 2009, be considered substitutes for the judicial opinions they reference. 

Overcriminalization: The Past, Present, and Future Expansion of the Criminal Law

Pace Law School Invites You To The Criminal Law Symposium that will be held on April 9, 2010 at 8:30 am - 6:30 pm at Pace Law School. The topic of the discussion is Overcriminalization: The Past, Present, and Future Expansion of the Criminal Law. Among the contributors and speakers are Prof. Luise E. Chiesa (Pace Law School), Prof. Paul H. Robinson (University of Pennsylvania School of Law), Prof. Jesus-Maria Silva Sanchez (Barcelona's Universidad Pompeu Fabra), and Prof. Douglas N. Husak (Rutgers New Brunswick). For more information, directions, contact information, schedule, and more, please click here.

DNA Identification Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions

Published on March 7, 2010, by LLRX.com (Law and technology resources for legal professionals), Ken Strutin has put together a guide to DNA Identification Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions.

In criminal cases, there have been challenges on sufficiency grounds and concerns over the use of forensic DNA evidence as the sole or primary proof of guilt. Uncorroborated DNA matching might not be enough to satisfy the burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The reliability of forensic DNA testing results might be questioned for any number of reasons, e.g., laboratory error, cross-contamination, interpretive bias or fraud, etc. See generally Tarnish On the 'Gold Standard': Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing, Champion, Jan./Feb. 2006, at 10.

Studies, standards and case reviews have highlighted the types of miscalculations that can occur and undermine confidence in evidence derived from genetic matching. Every kind of problem from mathematical errors to laboratory mishaps to fakery can plague the presumptive efficacy of DNA testing. This article highlights recent publications that underscore the need for closer scrutiny and weighing of DNA profiling when it is offered as the principal or exclusive evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.