by Regan Gibson, ACLR Featured Blogger  

          In the debate over the death penalty, those on both sides of the issue cite the impact of capital punishment on victims, their families, the defendants, and the public. Conspicuously absent from the debate are those who have arguably the most intimate view of capital punishment: the defense attorneys who fight for their clients’ survival until the last moment. In her new book, Fighting for Their Lives: Inside the Experience of Capital Defense Attorneys, Susannah Sheffer explores the small community of post-conviction capital defense attorneys who take cases in the last stages before executions. Through a series of interviews with twenty attorneys, Sheffer investigates the motivations of those who take on these cases, and the impact their unusual work has on both their professional and personal lives. The book does not present a balanced analysis of the legality or morality of capital punishment; not surprisingly, the interviewees are all outspoken critics of the death penalty. Rather, it is a testimonial of the impact of capital punishment on those who witness its effects over and over. Whatever your view on capital punishment, it is hard not recognize the emotional toll it takes on these advocates.

            Capital defense attorneys, particularly those who do post-conviction group, are a very small group with very specialized work. They join the case at the appellate stage and examine the record, looking for ways their clients rights might have been violated through the process. Most of the interviewees work in the “death belt” of the South, and have many more requests for their services than they can possibly take on. They have an average of 19 years of experience between them, and most have lost 10-20 clients to execution.

by Colin Starger

          During last month’s oral argument in Maryland v. King, Justice Alito announced that he regarded King as “perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this Court has heard in decades.”[1] Justice Alito’s extraordinary statement derives from the recognition that King could determine the relevance of the Fourth Amendment for the next generation. By mapping the underlying doctrinal debate in King, this Visual Guide reveals the critical Fourth Amendment choices facing the Court and illustrates the case’s potential to shape the meaning of privacy for the new age of surveillance.

          The issue in King is the constitutionality of provisions in Maryland’s DNA Collection Act that permit the State to collect DNA from those arrested for, but not convicted of, certain serious crimes. Respondent Alonzo King was arrested for assault and authorities collected his DNA collected pursuant to the law. When King’s DNA profile was entered into the “unsolved crimes” DNA database, his profile returned a “cold hit” to a prior unsolved rape. Based on this database hit, King was charged with and then convicted of this rape. On appeal from the rape conviction, King persuaded Maryland’s highest court that expansion of the DNA Collection Act to include arrestees violated the Fourth Amendment. After the Court of Appeals reversed King’s conviction, the State of Maryland successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court has since heard argument and its King decision is pending.

by Regan Gibson, ACLR Featured Blogger

            On February 26, 2013, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Maryland v. King, and will determine the constitutionality of a Maryland statute that authorizes the collection of DNA from individuals arrested for certain felonies.  In brief, the case concerns Alonzo King, who was arrested in 2009 on first and second-degree assault charges, and was subjected to DNA collection under the 2008 amendments to the Maryland DNA Collection Act. The Act authorizes authorities to collect DNA samples from those arrested for a crime of violence, an attempted crime of violence, a burglary, or an attempted burglary. Samples taken from arrestees are analyzed and profiles are uploaded in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”), where they can be compared against samples taken from crime scenes.[1]  King’s profile was uploaded into the system and a few months later (but before his trial on the assault charges) was matched with an unknown sample collected after an unsolved sexual assault.  The CODIS match was used as probable cause for a search warrant to collect a new sample from King and he was subsequently indicted and convicted for first-degree rape. King was sentenced to life in prison.

by David McAleer, ACLR Featured Blogger

            Over 250 innocent people have been exonerated through DNA evidence since it first appeared in criminal courts in the early 1980's. Using this popular hook, David Harris engages more broadly with forensics in his book Failed Evidence, exploring why law enforcement and prosecutors have shown such marked reluctance to incorporate a modern understanding of the scientific method.

            DNA evidence is not 100 percent certain. However, it was developed through extensive laboratory testing, with peer-reviewed findings and repeatable testing techniques. DNA technicians match certain markers from two different DNA samples, and, given acceptable statistical and population norms, an error rate can be calculated in specific cases of testing. Although the error rate would be vanishingly small if enough markers are positively compared, in practice standard techniques compare about thirteen markers. This makes the error rate something in the neighborhood of 99.9 percent, meaning that in a population of 1 million, a positive outcome could be caused by any of 1,000 people. Poor laboratory technique, faulty equipment or human error can increase the error rate. Nonetheless, DNA evidence derives its usefulness and validity from peer-reviewed repeatable testing, calculable error rates, the development of rigorous standards to reduce or eliminate human subjectivity and cognitive bias, and the fact that DNA matching incorporates scientifically accepted statistical analysis. By contrast, ballistics, shoeprint and tire marks, hair and fiber analysis, and odontology (bite marks) do not live up to any of these standards.