CrimProf Blog

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Law eJournal

are here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank	Paper	Downloads
1.	Tinder Lies Irina D. Manta Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law Date Posted: 22 Aug 2018 [3rd last week]	195
2.	The Extraterritorial Reach of Tribal Court Criminal Jurisdiction Grant Christensen The University of North Dakota Date Posted: 24 Aug 2018 [5th last week]	146
3.	Online Child Sexual Exploitation: Towards an Optimal International Response Victoria Baines Bournemouth University - School of Computing Date Posted: 11 Sep 2018 [9th last week]	105
4.	America’s Favorite Antidote: Drug-Induced Homicide in the Age of the Overdose Crisis Leo Beletsky Northeastern University - School of Law; Northeastern University - Bouvé College of Health Sciences Date Posted: 14 Aug 2018 [7th last week]	104
5.	Lies, Deceit, and Bullshit in Law Lawrence M. Solan Brooklyn Law School Date Posted: 05 Sep 2018 [8th last week]	103
6.	Twenty Years of Web Scraping and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Andrew Sellars Boston University School of Law Date Posted: 14 Aug 2018 [new to top ten]	65
7.	Ipeelee and the Duty to Resist Marie-Eve Sylvestre and Marie-Andrée Denis-Boileau University of Ottawa - Civil Law Section and University of Ottawa - Faculty of Law Date Posted: 31 Aug 2018 [new to top ten]	58
8.	Robot Criminals Ying Hu Yale University, Law School Date Posted: 26 Aug 2018 [new to top ten]	57
9.	Sex Offenders, Custody and Habeas Wendy Calaway University of Cincinnati - Blue Ash Date Posted: 28 Aug 2018 [new to top ten]	54
10.	Con Men and Their Enablers: The Anatomy of Confidence Games Barak Orbach and Lindsey Huang University of Arizona and Perkins Coie LLP Date Posted: 07 Aug 2018 [new to top ten]	47

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Procedure eJournal

are here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank	Paper	Downloads
1.	'The Strings in the Books Ain't Pulled and Persuaded': How the Use of Improper Statistics and Unverified Data Corrupts the Judicial Process in Sex Offender Cases Heather Cucolo and Michael L. Perlin New York Law School and New York Law School Date Posted: 02 Aug 2018 [2nd last week]	204
2.	Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review Nick Werle Yale Law School Date Posted: 07 Aug 2018 [3rd last week]	174
3.	The Power of Prosecutors Jeffrey Bellin William & Mary Law School Date Posted: 08 Sep 2018 [4th last week]	141
4.	Artificial Intelligence and Role-Reversible Judgment Kiel Brennan-Marquez and Stephen E. Henderson University of Connecticut - School of Law and University of Oklahoma - College of Law Date Posted: 15 Aug 2018 [5th last week]	128
5.	Judging Risk Brandon L. Garrett and John Monahan Duke University School of Law and University of Virginia School of Law Date Posted: 04 Jun 2018 [6th last week]	124
6.	Prosecuting in the Shadow of the Jury Anna Offit New York University School of Law Date Posted: 21 Aug 2018 [8th last week]	124
7.	The Confluence of Factors Doctrine: A Holistic Approach to Wrongful Convictions Stephanie Roberts Hartung Northeastern University - School of Law Date Posted: 07 Aug 2018 [7th last week]	122
8.	Artificial Intelligence and Policing: Hints in the Carpenter Decision Elizabeth E. Joh University of California, Davis - School of Law Date Posted: 03 Sep 2018 [9th last week]	104
9.	Character Flaws Frederic Bloom University of Colorado Law School Date Posted: 01 Aug 2018 [10th last week]	86
10.	Allocating Authority between Lawyers and Their Clients after McCoy v. Louisiana Judith Foo, Nina Varsava, Elizabeth Villarreal and David Walchak Independent, Stanford University, Yale Law School and Independent Date Posted: 15 Aug 2018 [new to top ten]

Jefferson-Jones on Community Dignity and the War on Drugs

Jamila Jefferson-Jones (University of Missouri at Kansas City - School of Law) has posted 'Community Dignity Takings': Dehumanization and Infantilization of Communities Resulting from the War on Drugs on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The half-century long “War on Drugs” and its “tough on crime” policies have wreaked havoc upon both individuals convicted of offenses and their communities. The impact on communities in this figurative war can be as devastating as the aftermath of a literal war, but that impact often goes unconsidered and unmeasured. We should consider this collateral damage a form of taking – a community dignity taking – like many other collateral impacts of policy. Bernadette Atuahene, in her seminal work on the subject, defined a “dignity taking” and included within that definition situations where a community is damaged through the deprivation of the dignity of its members. To date, scholars have typically applied this analysis to situations where real and personal property have been taken from communities, but not to collateral consequences of policy such as social stigma.

Continue reading

Greytak et al. on Privacy and Genetic Genealogy Data

Ellen Greytak, David H. Kaye, Bruce Budowle, CeCe Moore and Steven Armentrout (Parabon NanoLabs, Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Law, Independent, Parabon NanoLabs and Parabon NanoLabs ) have posted Privacy and Genetic Genealogy Data (Science, Vol. 361, p. 857, Aug. 31, 2018) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

This letter enumerates three major factors that make trawling DNA databases designed for genealogical research to identify individuals who may have left DNA traces at crime-scenes less invasive of legitimate privacy interests than one might assume.

Jefferson-Jones on Dignity Takings by Conviction

Jamila Jefferson-Jones (University of Missouri at Kansas City - School of Law) has posted Extending 'Dignity Takings': Re-Conceptualizing the Damage Caused by Criminal History and Ex-Offender Status (Saint Louis University Law Journal, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The consequences of a criminal conviction extend far beyond “time served”: Ex-offenders often face social and civil stigmas and disabilities that continue for the rest of their lives. These collateral consequences cause real harm to the reputation, dignity, and livelihood that can be difficult to quantify in the strictly economic analysis used in traditional constitutional takings analysis. These collateral consequences are a form of dignity taking which deprive the ex-offender of their status as a full member of society. Bernadette Atuahene originated the idea of “dignity takings”, eventually settling on a definition that combines a traditional government taking of property with an outcome of dehumanization or infantilization. Scholars have applied this analysis to a number of cases of tangible property, but have only just begun to expand it into the criminal justice and reputational harm cases.

Continue reading

Edkins & Dervan on Future Collateral Consequences and the Decision to Plead Guilty

Vanessa Edkins and Lucian E. Dervan (Florida Institute of Technology and Belmont University School of Law) have posted Freedom Now or a Future Later: Pitting the Lasting Implications of Collateral Consequences Against Pretrial Detention in Decisions to Plead Guilty (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (2018)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

With a criminal conviction comes numerous restrictions on rights, and often these collateral consequences are not adequately communicated to a defendant accepting a plea deal. The question we posed was whether informing individuals of collateral consequences would alter their decisions to plead. Using prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984) and the theory of temporal discounting (Ainslie,1975), we hypothesized that the delayed nature of collateral consequences - especially if the consequences were competing with overly enticing immediate rewards to accepting a plea deal, namely the ability to be released from pretrial detention - would not have the desired effect of exerting a strong influence on decisions to plead. Across two studies - the first, an exploratory within-subjects design; the second, a more controlled between-subjects design - we found that while actual guilt mattered the most with regard to decisions to plead, pretrial detention also weighed heavy (especially influential in challenging our innocent participants’ steadfastness to hold out for a trial). Collateral consequences did not have as large of an impact, especially if pretrial detention was involved. We also saw that, in general, participants were not opposed to the imposition of most collateral consequences. Future directions for plea bargaining research are discussed.

Legewie & Fagan on Aggressive Policing and Educational Performance

Joscha Legewie and Jeffrey Fagan (Harvard University - Department of Sociology and Columbia Law School) have posted Aggressive Policing and the Educational Performance of Minority Youth on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

An increasing number of minority youth are confronted with the criminal justice system. But how does the expansion of police presence in poor urban communities affect educational outcomes? Previous research points at multiple mechanisms with opposing effects. This article presents the first causal evidence of the impact of aggressive policing on the educational performance of minority youth. Under Operation Impact, the New York Police Department (NYPD) saturated high crime areas with additional police officers with the mission to engage in aggressive, order maintenance policing. To estimate the effect, we use administrative data from about 250,000 adolescents aged 9 to 15 and a Difference-in-Difference approach based on variation in the timing of police surges across neighborhoods. We find that exposure to police surges significantly reduced test scores for African-American boys, consistent with their greater exposure to policing. The size of the effect increases with age but there is no discernible effect for African-American girls and Hispanic students. Aggressive policing can thus lower the educational performance of African-American youth. These findings provide evidence that the consequences of policing extend into key domains of social life, with implications for the educational trajectories of minority youth and social inequality more broadly.

Cassell & Guiora on Miranda

Paul G. Cassell and Amos N. Guiora (University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law and University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law) have posted Point/Counterpoint on the Miranda Decision: Should It Be Replaced or Retained? (Utah Bar Journal Vol. 31 No. 5 (2018)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

In this point/counterpoint exchange, Professors Paul Cassell and Amos Guiora debate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Cassell challenges the decision, arguing that it has had harmful effects on American law enforcement efforts. Cassell cites evidence that the decision led to reduction in crime clearance rates and urges that the restrictions in the decision be replaced by a requirement that the police videotape interrogations. Cassell urges prosecutors to consider arguing that modern tools like videotaping creates a legal regime that allows the technical Miranda rules to be regarded as superseded relics of an outmoded and harmful prophylactic regime. Guiora responds that the Miranda decision was required to protect vulnerable suspects during inherently coercive police interrogation. Guiora reviews the language Chief Justice Warren used in the Miranda decision, noting that Warren was concerned to ensure that a suspect’s basic constitutional rights were respected by law enforcement while conducting custodial interrogation. Guiora concludes that the decision remains as important today as it was when handed down in 1966.

Landeo & Spier on Ordered Leniency

Claudia M. Landeo and Kathryn E. Spier (University of Alberta - Department of Economics and Harvard University - Law School - Faculty) have posted Ordered Leniency: An Experimental Study of Law Enforcement with Self-Reporting on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

This paper reports the results of an experiment designed to assess the ability of an enforcement agency to detect and deter harmful short-term activities committed by groups of injurers. With ordered-leniency policies, early cooperators receive reduced sanctions. We replicate the strategic environment described by Landeo and Spier (2018). In theory, the optimal ordered-leniency policy depends on the refinement criterion applied in case of multiplicity of equilibria. Our findings are as follows. First, we provide empirical evidence of a "race-to-the-courthouse'' effect of ordered leniency: Mild and Strong Leniency induce the injurers to self-report promptly. These findings suggest that the injurers' behaviors are aligned with the risk-dominance refinement. Second, Mild and Strong Leniency significantly increase the likelihood of detection of harmful activities. This fundamental finding is explained by the high self-reporting rates under ordered-leniency policies. Third, as a result of the increase in the detection rates, the averages fines are significantly higher under Mild and Strong Leniency. As expected when the risk-dominance refinement is applied, Mild Leniency exhibits the highest average fine.

Millemann et al. on Criminal Clinic Design

Michael A. Millemann, Rebecca Bowman-Rivas and Elizabeth Smith (University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and Independent) have posted Digging Them Out Alive (Clinical Law Review (2019 Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

From 2013-2018, we taught a collection of interrelated law and social work clinical courses, which we call “the Unger clinic.” This clinic was part of a major, multi-year criminal justice project, led by the Maryland Office of the Public Defender. The clinic and project responded to a need created by a 2012 Maryland Court of Appeals decision, Unger v. State. It, as later clarified, required that all Maryland prisoners who were convicted by juries before 1981—237 older, long-incarcerated prisoners—be given new trials. This was because prior to 1981 Maryland judges in criminal trials were required to instruct the jury that they—the jury—had the ultimate right to determine the law. Our clinic helped to implement Unger by providing a range of legal services and related social services to many of these prisoners.

Continue reading

Gatta on Prosecuting Public Corruption

Gian Luigi Gatta (University of Milan) has posted The Prosecution of Public Corruption in the United States: Political and Judicial Strategies - And, in the Background, an Expression of the Legality Principle Crisis (Revista Portuguesa De Ciência Criminal, 27, No. 2, May- August 2017) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Through the exam of the jurisprudence of the U.S.Supreme Court and of the federal criminal courts, the Author identifies two different trends of the political and judicial strategy in the field of repression of public corruption in the U.S.

The first trend (as in McCormick v. U.S. and in McDonnell v. U.S.) aims to avoid criminal liability in campaign cases; the second trend (as in Evans v. U.S., in Skilling v. U.S. and in Ocasio v. U.S.), instead, tends to affirm criminal liability in the other cases.

Continue reading

Minhee & Calandrillo on The Opioid Crisis and the War on Drugs

Christine Minhee and Steve Calandrillo (University of Washington, School of Law, Students and University of Washington - School of Law) have posted The Cure for America's Opioid Crisis? End the War on Drugs (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

The War on Drugs. What began as a battle waged on morals has in fact created multiple public health crises, and no recent phenomenon illustrates this in more macabre detail than America’s opioid disaster. Last year alone amassed a higher death toll than the totality of American military casualties in the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars combined. With this wave of mortalities came an accompanying tidal crash of parens patriae lawsuits filed by states, counties, and cities on the theory that jurisdictions are entitled to recompense for the costs of addiction ostensibly created by Big Pharma. To those attuned to the failures of the Iron Law of Prohibition, this litigation-fueled blame game functions merely as a Band-Aid over a deeply infected wound. This Article synthesizes empirical economic impact data to paint a clearer picture of the role that drug prohibition has played in the devastation of American communities, exposes parens patriae litigation as a misguided attempt at retribution rather than deterrence, and calls for the legal and political decriminalization of opiates. We reveal that America’s fear of decriminalization has at its root the “chemical hook” fallacy—a holdover from Nancy Reagan-era drug policy that has been debunked by far less wealthy countries like Switzerland and Portugal, whose economies have already benefited from discarding the War on Drugs as an irrational and expensive approach to public health. We argue that the legal and political acceptance of addiction as a public health issue—not the view that addiction is a moral failure to scourge—is the only rational, fiscally responsible option left to a country that badly needs both a prophylactic against future waves of heavy opioid casualties, and restored faith in its own criminal justice system.

Gin & Imwinkelried on Nonjunk Science

Joanna Gin and Edward J. Imwinkelried (University of California, Davis and University of California, Davis - School of Law) have posted Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS): In Scientific Evidence, Even 'Gold Standard' Techniques Have Limitations on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

There is an emerging view that there are two types of forensic science: “junk” science such as forensic odontology (bitemark analysis) and “real” science such as nuclear DNA typing. The 2009 National Research Council report contributed to the emergence of this view. On the one hand, the report was sharply critical of techniques such as bitemark analysis. On the other hand, the report had high praise for techniques such as the DNA typing identification technique and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) as an elemental analysis methodology. The courts are becoming increasingly skeptical about “junk” science techniques. In some instances, they are excluding testimony based on such techniques. In other cases, they are severely restricting the wording of the opinions based on such techniques that experts may testify to. However, in the case of “real” science, the courts tend to assume reliability. In particular, the courts have come to view nuclear DNA typing and GC/MS analysis as the “gold standards” of forensic science. The courts routinely admit testimony about nuclear DNA typing, and one court has gone to the length of declaring that GC/MS analysis is “nearly infallible.”

However, the 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report raised questions about one “gold standard,” DNA analysis.

Continue reading

Siegel & Eldred on The Continuing Duty to Defense Clients

David M. Siegel and Tigran Eldred (New England Law | Boston and New England Law | Boston) has posted The Established Continuing Duty (The Professional Lawyer, Vol. 25, Issue 1 (2018)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

This brief article traces the development of a new standard of practice for lawyers handling criminal cases: an obligation to assist their former clients, through affirmatively disclosing to subsequent counsel and protecting from disclosure to prosecutors, any information that may assist the former client in attacking his prior conviction – including attacking the work of his prior lawyer. This continuing duty, most recently and expansively recognized in the American Bar Association’s Standards for the Defense Function (4th Ed. 2016), reflects increased understanding of the importance of ensuring effective assistance of counsel, acknowledged in recent state and federal court decisions, opinions of the American Bar Association Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and US Department of Justice policies. These obligations will impact prosecutors and judges, as well as defense counsel, because much of their impact will be in post-conviction proceedings. As there is yet no published commentary for the 4th Edition of the ABA’s Standards for the Defense Function, this article concisely presents the sources, background and contours of this new duty.

Avey on Military Police

Jonathan Avey (Osgoode Hall Faculty of Law) has posted Police Independence vs Military Discipline: Democratic Policing in the Canadian Forces (Manitoba Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2018) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Over the last 25 years, there has been a gradual acceptance within the Canadian Forces that Military Police need to be able to function independently when exercising their duties as police officers. This acceptance has led to organizational and administrative changes to provide such independence to MP members; however, despite these changes, there remains the risk that MP independence may be eroded in the course of criminal or disciplinary investigations. This article presents two recent matters to illustrate that the independence currently afforded to MP investigators is still very much in doubt. The first is the recent decision of the Court Martial Court of Appeal in R v Wellwood, which brought the dichotomy of MP independence and the need to maintain discipline and a rigid obedience to orders from a superior squarely before the court. The second is the recent controversy surrounding the MP investigation into allegations against Lieutenant Colonel Mason Stalker, which ultimately resulted in a stay of proceedings being directed on all charges and Stalker launching a lawsuit against the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

Continue reading

Ferzan on Personal Identity in the Criminal Law

Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (University of Virginia, School of Law) has posted Patty Hearst Reconsidered: Personal Identity in the Criminal Law (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 15, 2018) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

In this contribution to a symposium celebrating Joshua Dressler, I revisit the Dressler/Delgado debate over Patty Hearst through the prism of personal identity. After reviewing why personal identity presents a problem for punishment, I discuss how a "personal identity" defense would fit within the criminal law, including when it would undermine status responsibility, when it would undermine a voluntary act, and when it would serve as an excuse.

Sisk et al. on Attorney-Client Confidentiality in Inmate Correspondence

Gregory C. Sisk, Michelle King, Joy Nissen Beitzel, Bridget Duffusand Katherine Koehler (University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota), Independent, Independent, Independent and Independent) have posted Reading the Prisoner’s Letter: Attorney-Client Confidentiality in Inmate Correspondence (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (2019 Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

No one in our society has a more compelling need to communicate in complete confidence with a lawyer than a prisoner, when challenging a conviction as wrongful or prison conditions as unlawful. No one has a greater need to be able to engage in the uninhibited discussion of highly personal matters, tragic events, and official misconduct. A prisoner’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, access to the courts, due process, and assistance of counsel are placed in unique jeopardy when a correctional system insists on prying into the substantive contents of legal mail.

Continue reading

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Law eJournal

are here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank	Paper	Downloads
1.	Very Broad Laws Kiel Brennan-Marquez University of Connecticut - School of Law Date Posted: 24 Jul 2018 [2nd last week]	193
2.	Brief Amicus Curiae of Gail Heriot and Peter N. Kirsanow, Members of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, in Support of Petitioner in Randy Joe Metcalf V. United States (Cert Stage) Gail L. Heriot and Peter Kirsanow University of San Diego School of Law and Independent Date Posted: 24 Jul 2018 [3rd last week]	169
3.	Tinder Lies Irina D. Manta Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law Date Posted: 22 Aug 2018 [5th last week]	169
4.	Why Is It Wrong To Punish Thought? Gabriel Mendlow University of Michigan Law School Date Posted: 24 Jul 2018	157
5.	The Extraterritorial Reach of Tribal Court Criminal Jurisdiction Grant Christensen The University of North Dakota Date Posted: 24 Aug 2018 [6th last week]	145
6.	Sanctions for Acts or Sanctions for Actors Frederick Schauer University of Virginia School of Law Date Posted: 26 Jul 2018 [7th last week]	101
7.	America’s Favorite Antidote: Drug-Induced Homicide in the Age of the Overdose Crisis Leo Beletsky Northeastern University - School of Law; Northeastern University - Bouvé College of Health Sciences Date Posted: 14 Aug 2018 [8th last week]	99
8.	Lies, Deceit, and Bullshit in Law Lawrence M. Solan Brooklyn Law School Date Posted: 05 Sep 2018 [9th last week]	99
9.	Online Child Sexual Exploitation: Towards an Optimal International Response Victoria Baines Bournemouth University - School of Computing Date Posted: 11 Sep 2018 [new to top ten]	99
10.	'The Soul is the Prison of the Body' – Mandatory Moral Enhancement, Punishment & Rights Against Neuro-Rehabilitation Christoph Bublitz Universität Hamburg Date Posted: 27 Jul 2018	64

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Procedure eJournal

are here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank	Paper	Downloads
1.	Faithful Execution: The Persistent Myth of Widespread Prosecutorial Misconduct Timothy Harker United States Attorney's Office - Eastern District of Tennessee Date Posted: 24 Jul 2018	346
2.	'The Strings in the Books Ain't Pulled and Persuaded': How the Use of Improper Statistics and Unverified Data Corrupts the Judicial Process in Sex Offender Cases Heather Cucolo and Michael L. Perlin New York Law School and New York Law School Date Posted: 02 Aug 2018	195
3.	Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review Nick Werle Yale Law School Date Posted: 07 Aug 2018	167
4.	The Power of Prosecutors Jeffrey Bellin William & Mary Law School Date Posted: 08 Sep 2018 [new to top ten]	132
5.	Artificial Intelligence and Role-Reversible Judgment Kiel Brennan-Marquez and Stephen E. Henderson University of Connecticut - School of Law and University of Oklahoma - College of Law Date Posted: 15 Aug 2018 [7th last week]	125
6.	Judging Risk Brandon L. Garrett and John Monahan Duke University School of Law and University of Virginia School of Law Date Posted: 04 Jun 2018	122
7.	The Confluence of Factors Doctrine: A Holistic Approach to Wrongful Convictions Stephanie Roberts Hartung Northeastern University - School of Law Date Posted: 07 Aug 2018 [5th last week]	120
8.	Prosecuting in the Shadow of the Jury Anna Offit New York University School of Law Date Posted: 21 Aug 2018	119
9.	Artificial Intelligence and Policing: Hints in the Carpenter Decision Elizabeth E. Joh University of California, Davis - School of Law Date Posted: 03 Sep 2018 [10th last week]	101
10.	Character Flaws Frederic Bloom University of Colorado Law School Date Posted: 01 Aug 2018 [9th last week]	83

Graham on Evidence

Michael H. Graham (University of Miami - School of Law) has posted three articles on SSRN. The first is Autopsy Reports Under the Confrontation Clause: 'Significant Confusion' Indeed!!! (Vol. 53 Crim.L.Bull. 1041 (2017)). Here is the abstract:

 

The admissibility of an autopsy report against the criminal defendant at trial either substantively or as reasonably relied upon under Fed.R.Evid. 703 has resulted in a myriad of approaches being employed to apply the confrontation clause analyses as developed by the United States Supreme Court in Crawford to Williams/Clark. This myriad of approaches exemplifies the “significant confusion” Justice Kagan dissenting in Williams accurately predicted. Unfortunately, it isn’t the 4 to 1 to 4 opinion in Williams alone that has led to the substantial disagreement amongst courts in applying the confrontation clause to autopsy reports as many of the approaches taken by lower courts represent overall unhappiness with the clear mandate of Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming requiring the testimony of an expert possessing sufficient personal knowledge whenever an autopsy report is employed against the accused in a criminal trial.

Continue reading