Cloud computing, the cloud, saving trees. Here’s a link to the new Florida court rules for service of documents on counsel in a case. The next step shouldn’t be much harder – allowing public access to filings in the same was as PACER. h/t Rick Georges.
We don’t have this come up too often because of the nature of our clients. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984), held that if a trial court determines that the prosecution will be able to impeach a defendant through his prior convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)…
We all know that a defense counsel (and for that matter trial counsel) should not trust what comes out of a military drug lab, USACIL, or DCFL – I won’t rehash the problems over the years – which may well be continuing. While the problems have been substantial, DOD and…
Evidence of past false complaints of sexual offenses by an alleged victim of a sexual offense is not within the scope of this rule and is not objectionable when otherwise admissible. Appendix 22, p. A22-36, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012).
Pennsylvania Public Defenders Rebel Against Crushing Caseloads. [Washington] Supreme Court Adopts Standards for Indigent Defense: Case Limit Guidelines Effective in 2013.
SBS has been subject to significant criticism, so the “experts” have changed it’s name to Abusive Head Trauma. But does a name change mean that the “syndrome” or “diagnosis” is any more real? Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence: Getting It Right Keith A. Findley University of…
Now that the current slew of confrontation cases are decided it’s time to regroup. Let’s start with my former evidence professor, Paul Gianelli (a former Army JA). Confrontation, Experts, and Rule 703 Paul C. Giannelli Case Western Reserve University – School of Law 20 J.L. & Pol’y 443 (2012) Case…
In Faison v. Belcher, a prisoner at the USDB sought to get the federal district court in Kansas to grant a habeas for several issues, including a Fosler issue.
From my very first opinion on this Court, I have consistently concluded that Mil.R.Evid. 410 must be applied broadly to be consistent with its purpose. United States v. Barunas, 23 M.J. 71, 75-76 (CMA 1986). See also Fed.R.Evid. 410. Speaking for the Court in Barunas, I said: The general purpose…
NOTE: “If you Have a Zero-Tolerance Policy, Why Aren’t You Doing Anything?: Using the Uniform Code of Military Justice to Combat Human Trafficking Abroad, 80 Geo Wash L. Rev. 1255 (2012).