From The New York Times: “To Judge Sleep Aids, U.S. Looks at Drowsy Driving in the Morning.” The Food and Drug Administration is considering the residual drowsiness that can persist the day after taking prescription sleep aids, and whether users can drive safely upon waking. Click here to read the story: http://nyti.ms/16JxvIK
Stephen Lemons | New Times As Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery fights to keep Debra Milke behind bars pending a retrial on her overturned murder conviction, he also is fighting a proposed rule to the State Bar of Arizona that would require prosecutors to act on new evidence of a wrongful conviction. For the past two years, the Arizona Justice Project has petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court to change the State Bar of Arizona’s ethics rules, adding a provision based
Here is latest news article on the Milke case. It discusses the potential conflict of interest issues with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) prosecuting her case after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed her conviction. The court’s ruling was based upon MCAO’s prior violation of their duty to disclose exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland. Anna Edney | Bloomberg News as reported in the Arizona Republic An Arizona woman awaiting retrial on charges she had a part
Here is an update of the Massachusetts Crime Lab Scandal: • In June, 2011, allegations of misconduct at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute in Jamaica Plain (Hinton drug lab) surfaced regarding work performed by Annie Dookhan, a chemist who had been employed in the forensic drug laboratory since November 2003. • Following an internal review, the Department of Public Health launched a formal investigation of the matter in December, 2011. The investigation concluded that “Dookhan failed to follow
I have seen jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn lecture several times (and stolen lots of his material for my own cases.) When It was revealed he worked on the Zimmerman case, I immediately understood how the defense overcame the “knock knock” joke in opening statements. Here is an article from USA Today explaining some of the jury selection strategies Hirschhorn used. SANFORD, Fla. — One of the people instrumental in helping George Zimmerman’s defense team pick an all-female jury says that
Yesterday I included the Milke case as one of my favorite Brady decisions. For the non-lawyers, Brady refers to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland which held that when the government withholds exculpatory evidence it is a violation of due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” Think of it this way, you are charged with a crime and there is evidence that you may actually be innocent. The police, or the
Here are my seven favorite Brady decisions: 1. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U.S.83 (1963) Both Brady and his co-defendant were found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After trial, the prosecutor disclosed to Brady that the co-defendant admitted to the homicide. The court held that the prosecutor’s suppression of the confession violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Accordingly, the prosecutor must disclose to the defendant all material evidence that is exculpatory. What is material? Anything
“Knock, knock.” “Who’s there?” says George Zimmerman. Answer – a guilty verdict. http://tinyurl.com/pzudpa7
This month the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a judge does not have the discretion to hold a pretrial hearing on the reliability of scientific evidence. Since January 1, 2012 when Arizona adopted the Federal Daubert standard for safeguarding against junk science, several prosecutorial agencies have tried to persuade trial courts that things were “business as usual” despite the new rules of evidence. However, the February 5, 2013 ruling from Division One of the Arizona Court of
Daubert is the name of an United States Supreme Court case regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. While the case was decided in 1993, it’s holdings are new to Arizona. Despite some arguments to the contrary by a few luddites, Arizona adopted it on January 1, 2012. Arizona’s change to a Daubert standard for challenging scientific evidence may be the most significant event our court have ever encountered. Currently, there are 31 other states that have adopted
© 2023 All rights reserved for Koplow Law Firm.