Today we take up the defense’s assignment of error and address the application of Mil. R. Evid. 412 to the government. Does Mil. R. Evid. 412 apply to the government? Yes. Must the government follow the procedural requirements before introducing evidence that falls under Mil. R. Evid. 412? Again, yes. And, finally, what happens when the military judge admits government Mil. R. Evid. 412 evidence without first requiring the government to follow the rule’s procedural requirements? We test for prejudice.
United States v. Carista, No. 20150243 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 18, 2017).
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN THE DIGITAL WORLD 2 Technology has breathed new life into the interpretation of constitutional provisions.
EXCEPTIONAL TRANSITIONAL COMPENSATION 34 Help for Family Member Victims When Discharge Happens Before the Offense is Adjudicated [; increasing the secondary gain incentive].
The most potentially relevant is McWilliams v. Dunn, No. 16-5294, involves a question regarding the degree of independence needed for appointed mental health experts under Ake v. Oklahoma.
Then there are:
Weaver v. Massachusetts, No. 16-240: The defendant claims his lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to a closure of the courtroom during empanelment of the jury. Violation of the right to a public trial, when considered directly, is a “structural” error that is reversible without a showing that it actually prejudiced the defendant, but an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim requires a showing of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. Does IAC require a showing of prejudice when the underlying error is “structural”? I believe Strickland is clear enough that the answer is “yes,” but there is enough of a circuit split for the high court to take it up.
On this date in 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus was convicted of treason by a French court-martial.
J’accuse. “[A] phrase made famous by Emile Zola in a public letter attacking the irregularities of the Dreyfus trial (published Jan. 13, 1898).”
The accusation was enough.
The SVC also testified at the post-trial Article 39(a), UCMJ, session. When asked by the trial defense counsel if it was the “standard in practice as an SVC to meet with the military judge ex parte,” the SVC stated, “Generally, yes. We’re usually not included in [R.C.M.] 802 conferences, so generally the judge will speak with us, kind of one-on-one, sometimes before the trial begins and discuss just kind of administrative matters.” The SVC did not recall having a post-trial feedback session with the military judge.
Slip op. at 2.
In United States v. Turner, the AFCCA had several issues before it, two being: