A Project of the University of Michigan Law School and the MDefenders Program

Brief in Support of Motion for Admission and Funding for an Antiracism Expert Witness

This brief argues that funding for and admission of an antiracism expert witness is necessary to ensure due process and fairness under both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions, as well as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 261, § 27C. An antiracism expert’s testimony would assist the factfinder in understanding how structural and interpersonal racism shape perceptions, […]

Brief arguing virtual suppression hearing will violate constitutional rights because video conferencing differs qualitatively from in-person proceedings

Brief explains that video conferencing limits factfinder’s ability to reach accurate conclusions by skewing and disrupting communication and perception of participants (p. 19), leading to worse outcomes for defendants (p. 24), and decreasing the solemnity of courtroom proceedings (p. 25). Those arguments are then used to argue that virtual hearings violate the right to confront […]

Brief – Inefficacy of Limiting Instructions

p. 14 – 22 outline research on how jurors respond to limiting instructions, demonstrating that “providing a limiting instruction likely has little effect because it is almost impossible for jurors to forget evidence for one purpose, while remembering it for another.”

Amicus Brief – Jury Instructions on Eyewitness Memory

Filed by the American Psychological Association, this brief supports specific jury instructions on eyewitness memory: “Human memory is not foolproof. Research has revealed that human memory is not like a video recording that a witness need only replay to remember what happened. Memory is far more complex. The process of remembering consists of three stages: […]