So, to that end the defense needs resources to challenge admissibility of the evidence under Houser and also to evaluate and challenge evidence if it is admitted by the military judge.

THE INNOCENCE PROJECT (IP) is a national litigation and public policy organization based in New York dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. As the DNA exonerations have revealed, the misapplication of forensic science has been a leading cause of wrongful convictions. The newly created Strategic Litigation unit is aimed at, among other things, eliminating junk science from courtrooms nationwide, beginning with bite mark comparison evidence. To that end, IP seeks to partner with an attorney(s) on criminal cases involving bite mark comparison. Attorneys with cases meeting the following criteria should contact IP directly. Bite mark testimony is proffered by the government as evidence identifying the defendant to exclusion of all other potential sources Pre-trial, trial, appellate or post-conviction cases: The primary interest is assisting with pre-trial Frye/Daubert motions and hearings, but IP will consider bite mark cases in all stages of litigation Other disciplines, in particular other pattern or impression evidence: Although the initial focus is on bite marks, other novel, unvalidated disciplines will be considered. NOTE: Strategic Litigation will consider cases with or without biological evidence, i.e., non-DNA cases. IP Attorney to contact is: Chris Fabricant (cfabricant@innocenceproject.org) 40 Worth Street, Suite 701 New York, NY 10013 212.364.5997

h/t to NACDL, and here’s a link to their motions and brief bank.

—————————————————————

n. A Houser motion is what I call a Daubert challenge at court-martial. I have linked to an old one of mine. You will need to update, don’t just copy it, it’s an idea not the word.

Errin Morris, Cognitive Biasl and Evaluation of Forensic Evidence, The Champion, NACDL, May 2012.

Remember, USACIL and all the others get a full brief sheet on why the evidence should be tested and lots of facts. The subsequent testing is not done in the blind.

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers must affirmatively and correctly advise their clients about the immigration consequences of entering a plea and failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. NACDL, in collaboration with the Defending Immigrants Partnership, will present a free live online training to discuss defense counsel’s duty under Padilla and related issues. Expert faculty analyze the Padilla decision, outline the steps defense counsel must take to provide effective assistance of counsel to their non-citizen clients, and provide essential instruction[.]