Hello Readers,
This week Colleen got a very exciting phone call from
the client whose case I was working on. Basically, he was thrilled with the
brief Colleen wrote (the one I helped with)! He says he’s going to frame it and
read it every day. Obviously all the credit goes to Colleen on that one for
being a phenomenal lawyer and writer. But to play a part in that (after hours
of reading and rereading trial transcript, checking citations, and suggesting
new ones)—I can’t imagine a more rewarding feeling. It’s just absolutely
mind-boggling that an innocent man had spent all this time in jail, thinking he
was guilty because of false evidence, and that I had the honor of playing even
a small part in helping him.
We still don’t have the ruling from the court, but
giving a client a chance to tell his story honestly and to make him feel
validated and believed is a very proud moment for me. I’m incredibly impressed
by Colleen, not to mention Cheryl Anaya, our Senior Legal Assistant. With just a few weeks at AIP, I
imagine it’s very tough. There are a lot of cases that AIP can’t do much for;
even if we believe they’re innocent, some cases are just harder to work with,
and AIP has to turn down people who need help. But I got to help a real, live
person. Another human’s life is changed for the better and I got to help with
that, and for me that’s enough to know this project and people like Colleen and
Cheryl are important.
This week I also watched this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw-zyoYlIsA
a Ted Talk on
DNA evidence. More specifically, how DNA evidence fails. I highly recommend it.
It’s interesting because DNA is seen as so infallible, and while it is a
sophisticated science that is continuously improving, it’s not perfect. Juries
are often told not to rely on one piece of evidence alone, but when it comes to
DNA, if there’s evidence against you, that’s usually it. Things are never that simple
though; if they were it wouldn’t be law.
Congratulations! It is so great that you were able to help someone, and I'm sure it is very encouraging for your future - to know that the work in meaningful. :)
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the things I've heard people express frustration with--because of the popularity of CSI and other forensic shows, juries tend to put tons of weight on DNA evidence. In a trial, what strategies can lawyers use to show juries that DNA, though helpful, is not always the most important or trustworthy evidence?
ReplyDeleteYes, definitely. Many prosecutors talk about the "CSI effect", which they say makes juries less likely to convict on circumstantial evidence or non-forensic evidence. But according to Brandon Garrett in his book "Convicting the Innocent," many juries tend to give forensic evidence too much weight. Defense attorney's bringing in their own experts can definitely help this. Prosecutor's experts often work for the State or for police departments, and even though this isn't supposed to bias them, it definitely can. Furthermore, these experts don't work blind. They often know who the suspects are, if confessions have been made, etc. If defense attorney's bring in their own experts who can testify to the other side, this may help the jury see the flaws and not rely so heavily on one piece of evidence alone. However, this can be costly to defendant's since experts are paid.
Delete