Motion for Funding for a Video Mitigation Submission at Sentencing
This motion seeks court funding for a professionally produced mitigation video to present the client’s life history and individual circumstances at sentencing. It relies on research showing that visual narratives can improve comprehension, engagement, and contextual understanding while allowing courts to evaluate mitigation efficiently alongside written submissions and oral advocacy. The motion argues that a […]
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 – Impact of Prosecutor’s Racially Charged Language
p. 30 – 37 discuss studies of implicit bias and the ways that racial cues – like a prosecutor characterizing a Black man as ‘angry’ – can “automatically affect a broad range of decisions and behaviors” within juries.
Amicus Brief – Forensic Analyst Bias – Structural, Contextual, Confirmation
Filed by the Center for Integrity in Forensic Science, this brief explains the research demonstrating that cognitive bias in forensic analysts contributes to unreliable conclusions.
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.”
Transcript – Cognitive Bias Among Experts
Transcript of defense expert witness testimony focusing on contextual bias in forensics.
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: […]
Brief – Court Should Avoid Instructing the Jury a Witness is an “Expert”
p. 8-12 incorporate social science studies on how jurors respond to testimony designated as “expert”
Memo – Exclude Ballistics Evidence or Hold Daubert Hearing
Overviews shortcomings in firearm/toolmark analysis, specifically argues against any testimony of a “match”