Alumna and Members of the UIC Law Community Break Ground in Historic Movement for Forensic Defense Attorneys
Forensic Science Evidence at UIC Law
UIC Law adjunct professor Judge Al Maldonado, alumna Iveliz Orellano, and UIC Law Professor of Law Richard Guiterrez were involved in a historic ruling barring firearms examination evidence from a homicide trial in Chicago, resulting in a historic win for the client and opening new doors for how forensic science could be handled in legal cases in Illinois going forward.
Leading the charge is law school alumna Iveliz Orellano, an assistant public defender with the Forensic Science Division of the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender. Orellano, along with her colleague, Assistant Public Defender Celeste Addyman, is working on behalf of a client involved in a murder case where a crucial piece of evidence tying her client to the alleged offense is one fired-cartridge casing found in a car four months after the murder. After sending the fired casing to the Illinois State Police Crime Lab, a firearms analyst opined that this fired cartridge casing matched the cartridge casings found at the scene.
Guiterrez, who currently teaches criminal law and lawyering skills at UIC Law, was also a public defender at the start of the case and filed a motion to ask for a Frye hearing (a pre-trial hearing that determines what types of scientific evidence will be admissible in court) to challenge the validity of the “matching” casings the analyst found.
Though Judge Maldonado denied the Frye hearing, Gutierrez did convince him to conduct an evidentiary hearing under Illinois Rule of Evidence 403, which states that even if the evidence in a case tends to prove or disprove a fact, it can be excluded if it is substantially more prejudicial than it is probative. Guiterrez argued that systematic bias against defendants within the Illinois State Police Department’s forensic science lab, specifically within their firearms examination division, cast doubt on the validity of its conclusions.
Judge Maldonado granted the Rule 403 hearing, making it the first time a 403 hearing was used to determine the admissibility of firearms evidence in Illinois.
Gutierrez transitioned into academia and Orellano took over as the lead forensic attorney on the case. Orellano called in four experts from across the country to add testimony over the four-day hearing. Testimony uncovered many errors in Illinois State Police processes, including their failure to protect analysts from cognitive biases that could undercut the accuracy of results.
On July 1, Judge Maldonado ruled in favor of the defense, stating that error rates among firearms examiners were unknown and that there were no safeguards in the Illinois State Police to protect analysts from being influenced by additional information outside of what the science demands. In this case, analysts were found to be exposed to “task irrelevant information,” which contains details outside of what it is that they are trying to analyze. That type of exposure weakened the probative value of the evidence.
Another critical factor in Judge Maldonado’s decision was the validity of test results captured by yearly proficiency tests that analysts are required to take. He explained that even if a person marks “inconclusive” (or I don’t know), the system will still count it as a correct answer.
“Error rates among firearms examiners were unknown at best, or, as high as 66%, at worst,” Orellano said.
The defense found that an analyst had gotten an answer wrong on a proficiency test, further proving flaws in the system. The high error rate percentages, the lack of protection against bias, and unreliable test results all influenced Judge Maldanado’s decision to exclude the firearms evidence.
Firearms evidence has been accepted for over 100 years in Illinois despite there being little to no scientific validity behind the claims. Though firearms evidence was excluded from this case, more work will be needed for the decision to have a widespread effect.
“The argument that the error rates are unknown and actually are much higher than what is being reported is going to apply in every case, so we hope we can continue to use that argument to impact more cases in the future,” Orellano said.
Orellano credits much of her courtroom success to the knowledge and training she received as a student at the law school. During her time here, Orellano was a member of Moot Court Honors Council, serving as the Chief Justice, and was a member of a Trial Advocacy and Dispute Resolution competition team as well. She went on to compete in 1L Moot Court competitions and placed 1st in the Herzog competition.
“A lot of people think when you are a trial lawyer you will not be the one to do the briefing and oral arguments that you would in Moot Court. That is simply not true,” Orellano said. “I found that as a trial lawyer, writing good motions, briefs, oral arguments, and all of the other pre-trial work – Moot Court is what really prepared me to be able to do all of that.”
Orellano shares her keen knowledge and success with UIC Law students, often volunteering as a judge or coach for the Moot Court teams and discusses her work at the Public Defender’s Office as a guest speaker at the annual Bridge-to-Practice event held at UIC Law.
