Generating guidelines for courts to admit expert evidence

Overview

Julie Amero was convicted for FOUR charges, including the Risk of Injury to a Child charge that could result in a 40-years sentence. Testimony from experts was admitted as evidence that contributed to the case against Julie Amero.

Materials

• State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero case
• 250-word summary (produced in advance by learners).
• Summary position adopted for Detective Mark Lounsbury (generated from previous activity).
• Summary position adopted for Bob Hartz (generated from previous activity).
• Summary position adopted for Court Members (generated from previous activity).

Task 0: Form into Firms

Pairs should form start-up firms of no more than FOUR members and exchange summaries, summary positions adopted from consideration of prior expert testimony and behaviour of members of the court.

Task 1: Devise guidelines for handling evidence

Start-up firms are expected to generate no more than FOUR guidelines to support authorities in admitting expert evidence into court.

The expectation is that start-up firms should:

1. Spend no more than 20 minutes considering and discussing the primary problems with expert evidence in the State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero case and the impact this had on Julie Amero.

2. Spend no more than 20 minutes to formulate no more than FOUR guidelines that support members of the court, specifically the Judge, in admitting expert evidence into the court.

3. Generate ONE presentation slide that succinctly outlines each of the guidelines as well as a brief rationale for each guideline. The presentation slide should take no more than TWO minutes for the firm to present.