Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science, Pages 19-20
These pages reproduce portions of a 1996 United States Department of Justice report examining DNA testing in cases involving convicted defendants. They describe recurring features of the cases and summarize a survey of crime laboratories, including reported rates of inconclusive results and tests that excluded suspects, while noting evidence-handling concerns and limits on interpreting the figures.
Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science. Lundregan
This 1996 National Institute of Justice report presents case studies in which post-conviction DNA testing helped establish innocence and examines how those cases unfolded. The authors discuss investigative and trial factors, laboratory testing and evidence preservation, as well as limits of DNA interpretation in cases with multiple possible contributors, and consider policy implications for the justice system.
COUNTERING Counterintuitive Testimony (Adult, handout)
Often prosecution utilizes a counterintuitive “expert” to explain away problematic behaviors on the part of the complaining witness. Dr. Simpson offers a CLE training and 85-page handout on how to effectively challenge their expert.
- Seven specific strategies for cross
- A cure for a non-problem
- Accounting for true, unfounded, or false sexual assault claims
- Symptoms are not falsifiable
- Motivations for intentional false reporting
- Failure to account for confounding variables
- Confirmation bias
- The devil is in the details.
- Critique of:
- Freeze-Flight-Fight and Tonic Immobility
- Acting normal following the alleged assault
- Delayed disclosure
- Continued relationship with the accused
- Inconsistent, piecemeal, changing or incomplete memories
- Recantation
Explaining Counterintuitive Victim Behavior in Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Cases
This 2006 prosecution guide discusses expert testimony offered to explain behavior in domestic-violence and sexual-assault cases, such as delayed reporting, recantation, or continued contact with an alleged offender. It describes possible uses and limits of such testimony, stresses that admissibility depends on the jurisdiction and facts, and addresses considerations when a victim is not cooperating with prosecution.