PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The following case note published on the SCOTUS blog is a useful primer for the William's appeal which raises the important issue as to whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts violates the Confrontation Clause, when the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
SCOTUSblog Coverage
Briefs and Documents
Merits briefs for the Petitioner Amicus briefs in Support of the Petitioner- Brief for the California Public Defenders Association et al.
- Brief for the Innocence Network
- Brief for Richard D. Friedman
- Brief for Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- Brief for the United States
- Brief for National District Attorneys Association et al,
- Brief for the New York County District Attorney's Office and the New York County Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
- Brief for Ohio et al.
Certiorari-stage documents
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of Illinois)
- Petition for certiorari
- Petitioner's reply
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/williams-v-illinois/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;