After reading the State v. Grant Appeal here: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR286/286CR72.pdf, write a 1250-2000 worded well-crafted and edited case study that addresses the following:

Discuss each piece of new evidence linking Grant to the murder of Penny Serra and explain why new approaches of forensic analysis or technique were advantageous to the methods used in the original investigation.

Give your best legal argument as to why this new type of forensic evidence and the expert testimony on this evidence should be admissible in court (use the Daubert standard, after all, CT (where the murder took place) is a Daubert state).

Give your best counter-argument from the defenses standpoint as to why this evidence should not be admissible.

Discuss whether you think the prosecution or defense has the better legal argument regarding admissibility and why.

Find out if Grant has won his appeal argue whether the results are in line with your findings.

Re: No. 5. You will find this a very difficult assignment if you look up the ruling on his appeal BEFORE you develop your own argument. You are not being evaluated on whether or not you accurately predict how a court with legal professionals assesses the evidence etc; rather, you are being evaluated for your ability to critically assess evidence and, given your vantage point, determine its value and relevance. Step 5 is merely about looking at what happened and critically discussing what gaps that may or may not exist between your assessment and the court(s). Please keep this point in mind.