Attorney Wood was part of a team from MACDL, Harvard’s Criminal Justice Institute, and the New England Innocence Project that recently filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Judicial Court to harmonize the evidentiary rules regarding the admissibility of out of court lay identification opinion based on a surveillance video with the evidentiary rules regarding traditional eye-witness identification testimony (i.e. opinion testimony about first hand observation of a suspect committing a crime). Specifically, the brief urges the SJC to apply the modern understanding of the psychological factors that affect the reliability of the identification process - which is already reflected in the model jury instructions for evaluation of eye-witness identification testimony - to the admissibility and evaluation of lay identification opinion from a surveillance video. This issue is becoming increasingly important as technological advances make surveillance video more prevalent.
After Exoneration by Attorney Wood, an $8M Verdict for Nat Cosenza
After Attorney Wood’s decade-long fight to exonerate Nat Cosenza, a Worcester federal court jury returned an $8 million verdict for our client on September 30, 2022. After Nat’s exoneration, Attorney Wood joined efforts with the nationally prominent civil rights firm Loevy & Loevy. The civil rights suit on behalf of Nat, which was filed in 2018, was tried to a jury in Worcester federal court. That jury found that “Detective Hazelhurst’s fabrication of evidence caused Plaintiff Cosenza to be wrongfully convicted.”
When we take on a client, we see the case through. Our defense never rests.
Amicus: SJC Should Hear Full Appeal in Potential Wrongful Conviction
Attorney Wood - in his role as MACDL Amicus Committee co-chair - was proud to support the powerful amicus efforts of the New England Innocence Project, Boston College Innocence Program, The Exoneration Project, in Commonwealth v. Valle. The groups filed a joint amicus letter with the Supreme Judicial Court. Mr. Valle was convicted entirely on uncorroborated eyewitness identification testimony. Mr. Valle had an alibi. The case presents many of the factors identified in scientific research as risk factors for an erroneous identification. But his attorney never presented expert testimony on this research, relying only on jury instructions to educate the jury. The case appears to be a true miscarriage of justice. And yet, the Appeals Court not only rejected Mr. Valle’s appeal by viewing each error in isolation, but did so in an unpublished opinion and without even allowing his attorney, Jessica LaClair, to present oral argument. Read the amicus letter here.