Evidence Category Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog Published by International Military Lawyer

Another bad day at CAAF for the Fourth Amendment.

May 7, 2023 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Two recent decisions of CAAF condone unlawful or bad practices when OSI, CID, NCIS, and CGIS search cellphones; United States v. Shields and United States v. Lattin. As a result, the MCIOs are unlikely to change their unlawful or bad practices. More than sloppy police work gets two passes because the military appellate courts think suppression of evidence won’t change that behavior–and the accused is a bad person. Military defense lawyers need to be fully aware of the issues whenever evidence from an accused’s cellphone comes up in evidence.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches of our property, including cell phones. In Riley, the Supreme Court properly required a search warrant for (CID, OSI, CGIS, and NCIS) intrusions into seized cellphones. The court has acknowledged that people have a privacy right against Government intrusion without a warrant based on probable cause. As we know, there is an awful lot of personal data that is kept on the cellphone, and that can be retrieved with forensic tools.

In Lattin, the issue was a fishing expedition through the Appellant’s cellphone. The trial transcript shows that the OSI agent believed she had the right to search everything in the cellphone because it had been seized after the execution of a commander’s search and seizure authorization. With that general warrant concept in her mind she scrolled through a lot of information on the Appellant’s phone that wasn’t related to the reason for the search in the beginning. The OSI agent did not believe there were any limits based on her training and experience. Both the AFCCA and CAAF have ruled that the search was unlawful but that it was excused because there would be no future deterrent effect to OSI committing further unlawful searches. The court partly relied on Mil. R. Evid. 311, which wrongly summarizes the law post-Herring that was reinforced in Davis.

DNA–is touch or transfer DNA reliable evidence of guilt

May 9, 2022 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

My argument is no, and as military defense lawyers, this is our position at a court-martial trial held under the UCMJ.

In State v. Terrance Police, 2022 Conn. LEXIS 123 (May 10, 2022), the issue was whether “touch DNA” was good enough for probable cause to get an arrest warrant. Here is the important part of the decision saying it wasn’t.

[T]he DNA evidence used to describe the suspect was not a single source sample known to have come from the perpetrator. Rather, it was “touch DNA,” also known as “trace DNA,” from multiple sources that might or might not have come from the perpetrator—something the police simply had no way of knowing when they applied for the John Doe arrest warrant. Notably, the state has not identified a single case, and our research has failed to uncover one, in which mixed partial DNA profiles from touch DNA provided the description of a suspect in a John Doe arrest warrant. Touch DNA “is a term used to describe DNA that is left behind just by touching an object …. Notwithstanding its name, however, touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dawson, 340 Conn. 136, 153, 263 A.3d 779 (2021). Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id., 154.

“Believe the victim”–encouraging a presumption of guilt?

September 25, 2021 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

For your reading. R. Michael Cassidy, Character, Credibility and Rape Shield Rules. RESEARCH PAPER 542, Boston College Law School, October 8, 2020.

Cassidy’s introduction notes the attention sexual assaults have received over recent years in reference to Harvey Weinstein, Justice Kavanaugh, and even then VP Biden. He goes on to say that,

“It is a tautology to say “We believe survivors,” because the complainant is only a survivor if her claim of victimization is truthful. “The war cry “believe women” is seen by some as a necessary corrective to a historic injustice, and by others as dangerous ideological orthodoxy if “believe women” becomes “believe all women.”

Can you impeach the jury and their verdict

June 4, 2021 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

What, if anything, can you as military defense counsel do if you suspect some shenanigans during panel member deliberations?

Military Rule of Evidence 606 states the basic rule against questioning the panel members during or after the trial about what went on during deliberations.

Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a finding or sentence, a member of a court-martial may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the deliberations of that court-martial; the effect of anything on that member’s or another member’s vote; or any member’s mental processes concerning the finding or sentence. The military judge may not receive a member’s affidavit or evidence of a member’s statement on these matters.

Communicated character

January 19, 2021 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

If you have defended an assault case based on self-defense, you know that the alleged victim’s character for violence can be relevant. What about on direct?

If your client knows of prior acts of violence then he may have a better argument that it was necessary to use, perhaps, more force than if the client knew the victim to be a peaceful person.

Mil. R. Evid. 405(a) allows the opinion of a victim’s character trait for violence. 405(b) would appear to support specific acts regarding that trait of violence.

The medical exception in evidence.

August 22, 2020 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Prof. Colin Miller brings, The Admissibility of Statements Made to Doctors Consulted For the Purpose of Enabling Him/Her to Testify

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) provides an exception the rule against hearsay for

A statement that:

Evidence collection at the hospital

March 26, 2020 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Batts & Sanger on Collecting Forensic Evidence in the Emergency Department

By CrimProf BlogEditor

Confrontation of “science”

March 25, 2020 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Cheng & Mannion on Forensic Reports and the Confrontation Clause

By CrimProf BlogEditor

Confirmation Bias and Other Systemic Causes of Wrongful Convictions

July 22, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Confirmation Bias and Other Systemic Causes of Wrongful Convictions: A Sentinel Events Perspective,

By D. Kim Rossmo and Joycelyn M. Pollock.

Their study suggests that 37% of wrongful convictions result from confirmation bias.

Affirmative defenses–Macdonald trailers?

June 21, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

No. 19-0051/AR. U.S. v. Korey B. Kangich. CCA 20170170. On consideration of the granted issue, 78 M.J. 304 (C.A.A.F. 2019), the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Kangich, No. 20170170 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sep 27, 2018) (unpublished), and the opinion of this Court in United States v. McDonald, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2019), we conclude that because the affirmative defense of mistake of fact as to consent applies only if the mistake is reasonable as well as honestly held, the military judge did not err. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

This case does not appear on ACCA’s website. LEXIS has the case number as 20170170, and CAAF granted the following issue.

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN APPLYING A NEGLIGENT MENS REA TO MAKE OTHERWISE LAWFUL CONDUCT CRIMINAL.