Areas of Practice
Forensic Consulting
I am a consultant and trainer for attorneys dealing with complicated forensic science. I have expertise in DNA evidence, the science of eyewitness identification, false confessions, and geofence warrants. I join other attorneys on complicated cases, acting as co-counsel in federal and state court. I join the litigation team to handle all aspects of the forensic evidence, in pre-trial motions, discovery, and at trial. I also consult in a more limited fashion, helping prepare attorneys for trial, and providing them with the resources and tools for successful attacks on flawed science. I also train attorneys and law students on forensic science and publish on emerging issues, both for a forensic science audience and in legal journals. My articles have been cited in appellate decisions, journal articles, and legislative position papers.
Criminal Trials
With more than 14 years of experience as a criminal defense trial attorney, I have achieved dismissals or acquittals in homicides, arson, robbery, gun charges, rape, sexual assault, DUI, vehicular assault, domestic violence, felony drug charges, contempt, theft, fraud, and related offenses. I have experience with complex forensic evidence, from DNA, forensic pathology, and rape kits to flawed eyewitness identifications and false confessions.
Appeals and Post-Conviction
A majority of my current practices is devoted to post conviction matters in trial court, with a focus on former minors and youthful offenders convicted of homicide crimes, under petitions to reconsider their convictions pursuant to statutory murder resentencing procedures under S.B. No. 775, S.B. No. 1437, and Penal Code section 1172.6. I also represent people on appeal, and am a member of three of the statewide appellate panels.
Select Publications
Cited in Appellate Decisions
Valentino v. Clarke (2020) 972 F.3d 560, acknowledging the potential for DNA transfer: “Finally, Valentino may have picked up Islam's DNA from merely touching objects in the room. Cf. Bess Stiffelman, No Longer the Gold Standard: Probabilistic Genotyping Is Changing the Nature of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 110, 115 (2019) (“In short, small amounts of DNA can be easily transferred. ... Because of this, finding someone's DNA on an object is less significant to a determination of guilt or innocence of a suspect.”).
State v. Phillips (2020) 430 S.C. 319: Touch DNA is sometimes referred to as “trace DNA.” One commentator recently wrote, “These trace samples lack the clarity of the more straightforward DNA evidence that can lead to a clear match to a specific individual.” Bess Stiffelman, No Longer the Gold Standard: Probabilistic Genotyping Is Changing the Nature of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 110, 115 (2019).
In Forensic Science Journal
B. Stiffelman, Juror understanding of the weight of evidence presented as a likelihood ratio and the impact on the deliberative process: a response to Buckleton, et al. Forensic Sci. Int. 51 (2021) 102454. My concern is that a demonstrably pervasive misunderstanding and overvaluing of the weight of this evidence threatens to undermine the fundamental principles and protections in the criminal justice system, thereby increasing the risk of a wrongful conviction.
In Barristers’ Law Journal
B. Stiffelman, Response to Buckleton, et al, Criminal Law Review, Issue 12, 2020: Upon invitation, short piece published in British Barrister’s Journal about emerging DNA technology and the risk of wrongful conviction from over-valuing the evidence
As Guest Blogger
In Defense of Self Defense: Jenny and I just finished up another massive brief as team JennBess, BrandtStiff?, MachtBrandtelman? We’ll leave naming the team for another day. Among many fun arguments, we asserted the right of self-defense to vandalism charges. As there’s no California law on this, we thought it worth sharing the argument. Let’s make some law?
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
