1. To continue to monitor developments related to the Federal Rules of Evidence and of Criminal Procedure, offering commentary where appropriate, with the goal of becoming involved as early in the process as possible.
2. To adopt proposed amendments to the model grand jury instructions, and advance them within the Association.
3. To continue to track federal and state court treatment of the Confrontation Clause. Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004), and subsequent cases have transformed the meaning and scope of the Clause, and this development also has significant long-term ramifications for the law of hearsay. We hope in particular to post a statement advising jurisdictions as to how they may best cope with the doctrine of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 SCt 2527 (2009). as further elaborated in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 SCt 2705 (2011), dealing with the proof of forensic laboratory results.
4. To consider matters related to Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), including whether (a) notwithstanding the rule of Ruiz v. United States, 536 US 622 (2002), jurisdictions should adopt fuller disclosure requirements applicable to cases resolved before trial, and (b) jurisdictions should amend their rules of criminal procedure to comport more fully with ABA Model Rule 3.8.
5. To consider measures the Association might take to encourage capable new lawyers to engage in public service criminal law.
