From friend BW. State commission calls blood-spatter testimony in murder case ‘not … scientifically supported’ By Pamela Colloff, ProPublica, July 24, 201 An influential state commission said the blood-spatter analysis used to convict a former Texas high school principal of murdering his wife in 1985 was “not accurate or scientifically supported”…
My first GCM involved eyewitness identification and a motion to suppress based on an improperly suggestive show-up when the client was arrested. He was handcuffed in the back of the police car and the armed robbery victim was brought to the police car and asked ”is that him” or words…
During trial, the defense counsel make many decisions; sometimes there is an objection to evidence, sometimes not. How the appellate courts deal with allegedly inadmissible evidence depends on whether there was an objection at trial. If there is an objection the appellate court looks to see if the evidence was…
Since United States v. Hills, and then United States v. Hukill, the appellate courts have been trying to sort out quite a few cases on remand. Here is a list of the most recent CAAF actions. No. 18-0087/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan P. Robertson. CCA 39061. On consideration of the petition for grant of review…
Let’s take a look at United States v. Criswell, a case decided by the Army adverse to the appellant, and now pending review at CAAF, on the following issue. No. 18-0091/AR. U.S. v. Andrew J. Criswell. CCA 20150530. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United…
The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) has issued an interesting en banc (5-3) opinion in United States v. Hamilton, 76 M.J. ___ (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. 2017), about victim impact evidence or statements. The accused pleaded guilty to the possession and distribution of child pornography. On sentencing,…
United States v. Campbell, decided by the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (9/17), presents a current look at United States v. Terlap and proper sentencing evidence. The Appellant “that the military judge admitted improper evidence in aggravation and testimony contradictory to the stipulation of fact.” During presentencing testimony, the…
As you know, Military Rule of Evidence 1102 provides that, Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence – other than Articles III and V – will amend parallel provisions of the Military Rules of Evidence by operation of law 18 months after the effective date of such amendments, unless action to the contrary is taken…
The CAAF daily journal for 15 June 2017 has this entry: No. 17-0003/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA 20140939. On consideration of Appellee’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s decision, United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration be, and…
As an investigative tool, DNA has been a powerful weapon in identifying or confirming who committed a crime. But the value of DNA evidence is overshadowed by regular stories of corruption, incompetence, and flawed interpretation. It’s, for this reason, I never accept the DNA results as golden for the prosecution…