DP has referenced: NACDL’s 2013 Midwinter Meeting & Seminar will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, February 20-23, 2013.   It is called Reasonable Doubt and Actual Innocence: Winning Your Case With Cutting-Edge Science.

This unique CLE program will occur during an unprecedented meeting of NACDL simultaneously with the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). The theme of our CLE, “Reasonable Doubt and Actual Innocence: Winning Your Case with Cutting-Edge Science,” will supplement our historical training on the confrontation of expert testimony by teaching registrants how to effectively use scientific evidence to prove their case. On Thursday, our best trial lawyers will explain how to present a scientific defense from beginning to end – from discovery to verdict – and will introduce the factors specific to science for jury voir dire, discovery, and jury instructions that have been approved by recent ABA resolutions. The ethics involved in dealing with expert witnesses will also be addressed.  On Friday, NACDL will draw from the 4000 forensic scientists meeting across the street at AAFS to teach multiple aspects of cutting-edge science, including techniques and data routinely ignored by the government. As a singular highlight of the program, the 10 sections of AAFS will compete in 10 minute blocks to make the case for the power of their own discipline to help the defense.

For a while now I have been following the issue of IAC prior to trial:  forum selection, pretrial agreement negotiations, and collateral consequence discussions.  Along those lines, Duquesne Univ. School of Law, along with the ABA will sponsor:  Plea Bargaining After Lafler and Frye.

[A] national symposium on plea bargaining after the U.S. Supreme Court’s two latest decisions on the topic,Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. These decisions recognized that a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel in the process of criminal negotiations. The Court, however, expressly declined to say what remedy a defendant, whose lawyer did not perform effectively during the plea bargain, should receive. These cases raise many more questions than they answer. Do they change the plea process? How does one go about evaluating whether a lawyer has been a constitutionally competent negotiator? What remedy should lower courts apply? Do these cases portend judicial limitations on prosecutors?

Comments are closed.