Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘MUST’

Building a career as an attorney is a task that requires lots of study, hard work, stamina and above all, goal orientation. Because the average salary of an attorney is quite lucrative, students are flocking to law schools, thus enhancing competition.

Requirements for Getting into Law Schools

To begin your career as an attorney, at least a bachelor’s degree in a related field, such as Criminal Justice or Humanities and Social Studies, is a must. However, getting into the top law schools is quite a difficult task. For instance, it requires a high GPA (Grade Point Average) of at least 3.0 or 3.5 to get admission into a school. Other requirements include:

LSAT (Law School Admission Test): This is a 3 hour entrance exam that an applicant has to take to get into law schools. The exam tests applicants in 4 different sections, two sections in logical reasoning, one in reading comprehension and one in analytical reasoning. There is also an experimental section, which although not graded, must be done with great care. An admission committee will consider an applicant only if he has a score of at least 165 out of 180. Recommendation Letters: Law schools also assess candidates on the basis of the recommendation letters they receive. MBE and MPT: The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) is taken after graduating from a law school, before practicing law. This six hour exam covers a variety of topics, with a state relevant paper. The Multistate Performance Testing (MPT) is a state-specific exam that also covers different topics. This is usually taken with the MBE. Individual Statement: Individual statements are a reflection of the applicant’s personality and persuasiveness, a vital quality for an attorney.

Things You Must Know Before Enrolling in Law Schools

High Cost: While law schools generally charge more than $20,000 a year, private law schools can charge a tuition fee of $30,000 to $40,000 a year. To ease the burden, student can try getting scholarships, grants or take student’s loan. Intense Work: Law studies require three years of non-stop hard work, with lots of legal research. The first year is also known as the toughest, since there are great chances of elimination for non-dedicated students.

Top Education Guide is a comprehensive online database that provides information on various universities, campuses, vocational courses and degree programs that help progress one’s career. Log on to topeducationguide.com for free and accurate information that help enhance your professional goals.

Incoming search terms:

Laboratory analysts must now appear in court and submit themselves to cross-examination if their reports are admitted into evidence, according to a brand new ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

Last week’s 5-4 ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts mandates forensic analysts must appear in court under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause which gives criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses.

Crime lab analysts previously were rarely subpoenaed to testify about their reports.

Justice Scalia questioned the reliability of forensic science as a whole, mentioning a recent National Academy of Science report which raised a number of issues.

Rejecting the Prosecutor’s position that forensic reports, as scientific findings, are neutral facts rather than accusatory testimony, he opined:

“Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation. According to a recent study conducted under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. & Confrontation is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well. Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.”

“Like expert witnesses generally, an analyst’s lack of proper training or deficiency in judgment may be disclosed in cross-examination.”

Each state is left to establish a procedure for contesting lab reports and calling analysts to court, so it is too soon to tell what the ruling’s full consequences are.

This decision means a significant, future financial impact on crime labs by requiring analysts also to appear.  It usually takes twelve to twenty-four months to hire and train a new analyst, even if one’s budget supports new hirings.

Even considering that approximately 9 & 1/2 out of 10 cases end in a plea bargain, rights must be protected in that 5% that go to trial!

“The Confrontation Clause may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination. The Confrontation Clause–like those other constitutional provisions– is binding, and we may not disregard it at our convenience.”

Incoming search terms:

What is a Source Code?

In simple terms, the source code is the computerized language that operates a device.   It provides the device with a set of commands on how to analyze data and even when to turn “on” or turn “off.”  Source codes are used to operate your computer, your microwave, or your cell phone.  They are also used to operate devices used in DWI cases to determine blood alcohol content.

What is the issue?

As anyone who has used a computer knows, coding errors can occur.  Source codes are not infallible.  They are subject to human error, mechanical failures and even malicious coding. Treating them as infallible in court when it comes to testing blood alcohol in the breath, violates due process of a defendant when that defendant is unable to seek independent testing of the code used.

The Legal Issue?

In 2006, defendant’s in a DWI case in Florida sought the computerized source code for the breath testing device used in DWI offenses, a version of the Intoxilyzer 5000.  The source code, it was argued, was necessary for testing to determine if proper programming was included in the device so that it was accurately assessing blood alcohol concentrations.

The issue with the request that occurred was that the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer device, CMI, Inc., of Kentucky, considered its source code a trade secret and, as a result, refused to release it to the state to be turned over as discovery to the defendant.  Ultimately, the Florida Court refused to require the state to provide the defendant, Todd Moe, the source code.

Similar challenges began to spring up in many states.  In Minnesota, two Dakota county cases raised the issue.  In those cases, State v. Underdahl, and State v. Brunner, the lower trial courts ruled that the source code was discoverable and had to be turned over to the defense.   When the company, CMI, Inc., refused to part with its source code, the breath test results were suppressed.  The cases were appealed, finally making their way to the Minnesota Supreme Court for review.

On April 30, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its ruling on the two combined cases.

It decided that computer source code for the intoxilyzer 5000 machine is within the control of the state and that it must be turned over to defense counsel when the defense makes a showing that the under the Minnesota Criminal Rules of Procedure Rule 9.01, subd. 1, provided, however, a showing is made that the information may relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant or negate guilt or reduce the culpability of the defendant as to the offense charged.

The end result is that the Minnesota opinion provides defense attorneys a template by which they may seek  the source code in cases where computerized analysis of breath samples occurs.  It does require, however, that the defense, provide a reasonable basis as to why the code is relevant to the guilt of innocence of the individual in more than general terms.  In most instances expert testimony related to the nature of the source code and how errors may occur would be necessary coupled with any indicia that errors have occurred historically. Ultimately, if CMI, Inc. continues in its refusal to provide the source code to the state, challenges to the admissibility of breath test results in DWI cases will continue to increase and provide defense attorney’s a much needed tool in combating the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000