Do you ever get the client or family member who want to sue NCIS, OSI, CID, CGIS, for what they did in an interrogation. Barring application of Feres (ha, some English major has to find something wrong with that). Check out Smith v. Campbell, et. al., 295 Fed. Appx. 314,…
C.A.A.F. has DNA on its conference agenda. In a post-conviction access to DNA evidence case: The district court found that Bradley had a constitutionally protected interest in his life but that the due process protection of that interest was diminished by his conviction. United States v. King, No. 07-12073, 2009…
NACDL has an interesting News Release, Civil Liberties, Religious Groups Seek to Require Warrants for Police GPS Surveillance. A diverse group of civil liberties and religious organizations this week weighed in on the question of whether police need a warrant in order to conduct surveillance of personal vehicles by secretly…
Dr. Karen Franklin is one of many reporting the results of a survey in New Jersey on the effectiveness of Megan's law. Karen Franklin, Megan's Law: Millions for Nothing, 5 February 2009. Bottom line: Despite their enormous popularity, little research has been conducted into whether they work. Now, a federally…
I have Rules of Engagement for clients: for their conduct around the court-house, in the court-room, and on the witness stand. If you've done a case with me you have the ROE. They need it, and typically the more senior the client the more the need for ROE. So, it's…
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has decided United States v. Lanier, No. 20080296 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 4 February 2009). The opinion has some current value, even though this is a guilty plea and adequacy of the providency case. In this case the appellant was granted EML from duty…
United States v. Jones, No. 07-10289-MLW, 2009 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 6434 (D. Mass. 21 January 2009).* Prosecutors do this all the time. Prosecutors either fail to provide discovery or do so in a slow-rolling fashion. As the recent decision in Jones illustrates, it’s a gamble. The gamble is that provided…
The A.C.C.A. website now lists United States v. Rosas on it's argument schedule. CAAFLog notes that the, "[Harvaad] web site doesn't provide any guidance as to members of the public (including members of the military) without a Harvard i.d. would be admitted to the argument.] So, the existence of the…
Say it ain't so . . . The Army Court of Criminal Appeals goes to Harvard Law School on 5 February 2009, to hear oral argument in a case that is closed to the public — or at least that's the perception. Information came our way a short while ago…
In United States v. Remsburg, No. 20070161 (A. C.t. Crim. App. 30 January 2009), the court looked at three issues: whether the judge improperly restricted defense solicitation of favorable victim impact testimony; whether the judge was mean to the defense counsel; and post-trial delay. On the post-trial delay issue the…