Changing the Culture of Disclosure and Forensics

This Essay responds to Professor Brandon Garrett’s Constitutional Regulation of Forensic Evidence, and, in particular, his identification of the dire need to change the culture of disclosing forensic evidence. My work on forensics is—similarly to Garrett’s—rooted in both scholarship and litigation of wrongful convictions. From this perspective, I question whether prosecutors fully disclose forensics findings and whether defense attorneys understand these findings and their impact on a client’s case. To clarify forensic findings for the entire courtroom, this Essay suggests increased pre-trial discovery and disclosure of forensic evidence and forensic experts. Forensic analysts largely work in police-governed labs; therefore, this Essay also posits ways to ensure complete Brady compliance as well as obtain accurate and reliable forensic findings. Correctly understanding forensic findings can remedy a lack of transparency surrounding whether results were completely disclosed and whether the results support the testimony of lab analysts. Finally, to assist the court with its gate-keeping role of admitting forensic science disciplines and findings, this Essay recommends that courts appoint independent experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 706

The Overdose/Homicide Epidemic

This Article explores the lack of regulation of coroners, concerns within the forensic science community on the reliability of coroner determinations, and ultimately, how elected laypeople serving as coroners may influence the rise in drug-induced homicide prosecutions in the midst of the opioid epidemic. This Article proposes that the manner of death determination contributes to overdoses being differently prosecuted; that coroners in rural counties are more likely to determine the manner of death for an illicit substance overdose is homicide; and that coroners are provided with insufficient training on interacting with the criminal justice system, particularly on overdose deaths. Death investigations as a whole are not the impartial, scientific endeavors they are portrayed to be; instead, they can be deeply influenced by law enforcement and prosecutors, with medical examiners and coroners serving as part of the “investigative team.” Just as research has demonstrated that forensic analysts working in police-controlled crime labs can be influenced by a team mentality to find evidence supporting a prosecution, such a mentality can likewise be found in death investigations. The lack of impartiality leading to a death certificate or autopsy determination is, however, rarely exposed. In drug induced homicides, a confluence of a robust system of mass incarceration, political motives, and a wide-sweeping public health crisis lead to incarceration for drug abuse whether or not it is legally supported

Remarks on Manifesting Justice: Wrongly Convicted Women Reclaim Their Rights

The following are remarks from a panel discussion co-hosted by the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law and the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law on the book Manifesting Justice: Wrongly Convicted Women Reclaim Their Rights

Remarks on \u3cem\u3eManifesting Justice: Wrongly Convicted Women Reclaim Their Rights\u3c/em\u3e

The following are remarks from a panel discussion co-hosted by the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law and the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law on the book Manifesting Justice: Wrongly Convicted Women Reclaim Their Rights