Validation and casework application of a Y chromosome specific STR multiplex

A series of validation experiments was performed for a Y chromosome specific STR multiplex system following the suggestions made by the Technical Working Group DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM). The multiplex PCR products were detected on Perkin-Elmer 373 and 377 automated sequencers using two labeling colors. No problems regarding the stability, robustness and sensitivity of the Y STR multiplex were observed. Mixture studies revealed a cut off rate similar to autosomal STRs for mixtures of male DNAs and no interference of any female admixture. The comparison of the Y STR results to the autosomal typing results for 56 nonprobative semen stains and swabs, showed a slightly higher success rate in detecting the semen donor’s alleles for the Y STR multiplex. Two examples are shown to illustrate the usefulness of Y STR typing for DNA mixtures. In one case the Y STR results confirmed an isolated exclusion; in the other case, the interpretation of a mixture was clarified since the Y STR results proved the presence of DNA from at least two semen donors. Y STR typing is a valuable addition to the forensic DNA testing panel.     

Advocacy in Constitutional Choice: The Cramer Treason Case, 1942–1945

How did advocacy at each level of the federal judiciary help shape the leading decision in American law of treason? This article, adapted from a forthcoming biography of Judge Harold R. Medina, is a case study based on Justice Department archives and the personal papers of Medina, Charles Fahy, and seven Supreme Court Justices. It analyzes the whole case, from the lawyers’standpoint, to illuminate the role of counsel in transforming a minor wartime incident into the first treason case decided on the merits by the Supreme Court and the tribunal's only decision during World War II to limit constitutional war powers. Accenting litigation strategy and the use of history in constitutional interpretation, it is a story also of the struggle by counsel on both sides of the case to uphold high professional standards amid the passions of total war.     

When courts and experts disagree: Discordance between insanity recommendations and adjudications

Discordance between state examiner recommendations of culpability and subsequent insanity adjudications was investigated. The discordant group was compared with groups of defendants where concordance occurred between recommendation and adjudication. Data were collected from casefile materials (totalN=80) and comparisons were made on defendant's background, the offense, and the forensic evaluation. To determine how purposeful and goal directed the offense was, offenses were rated on a rationality scale. Results indicated that defendants in the discordance group committed emotionally charged or unusual offenses, were likely to have a psychiatric history (65%) and were more likely to have been found incompetent to stand trial than defendants recommended and adjudicated culpable. The discordant group was dissimilar to defendants recommended and adjudicated insane in frequency of prior felony arrest (65%), alcohol/drug use at time of offense (55%), paucity of psychosis (20%) and higher frequency of claimed amnesia (35%). On the rationality scale, discordant defendants were intermediate between those defendants recommended and adjudicated insane, who typically committed irrational offenses, and those defendants recommended and adjudicated culpable, who typically committed purposeful and goal directed offenses.     

State Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Protection of Civil Liberties

Advocates of federalism, both in the United States and elsewhere, often cite the potential for enhanced protection of individual civil liberties as an emerging rationale for a federal system dividing governmental responsibilities between central and regional governments and central and regional judiciaries. Echoing this, some judicial officials and scholars, confronting an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, have called for state supreme courts to use the state constitutional grounds to preserve and increase the protections of the Bill of Rights. Using event count analysis, we examine state search-and-seizure cases for 1981 to 1993 to ascertain under what circumstances state courts would use this opportunity to eliminate Supreme Court review. We find that the relative ideological position of the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court often prevents, or does away with the need for, liberal courts to use the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine to expand the rights of criminal defendants and that state supreme court justices react more predictably in the assertion of constitutional protection law than the general consensus suggests.     

Some Reflections on the Practice of Mediation

Negotiation Journal -