Articles Posted in Uncategorized

There will be no more oral arguments this term.  The “watch” now relates to two pending decisions of importance to military justice practitioners.

The most important is when will the Supremes issue an opinion in Melendez-Diaz.  Currently the law in the military for admission of forensic reports is Harcrow (for which M-D is on point).  It is possible that the decision could also have some influence over the CAAF decision in United States v. Magyari, 63 M.J. 123 (C.A.A.F. 2006).  I can only hope.  I appreciate that I’m among the very few that believes Magyari wrongly decided because of the need to protect the military urinalysis program.  Having had a case in which Dr. Pappa of the A.F. Drug Testing Lab testified on some specific points contradictory to some of the assumptions of the Magyari opinion I’m hopeful there might be some useful language out of M-D.  Although as Chief Inspector Wilcox would say, “I’m not sanguine, not sanguine at all.”

Then there is the coram nobis case of Denedo, which will impact military writ practice and some CAAF juridisctional issues.

Here is an item from the FayObserver.com

Why is Ronald Adrin Gray still alive?

Computer search warrant was badly drafted, and it lacked particularity. However, the good faith exception saved the search because the officer sought counsel from the USMJ and AUSA in executing it. United States v. Otero, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9001 (10th Cir. April 28, 2009).

Police who were actually investigating the possibility child porn was on defendant’s computer did not misrepresent what they were looking for when they said credit card fraud, but they really knew that defendant had used his credit card on a child porn website. Possibility of credit card fraud was enough. [HA!] People v. Prinzing, 2009 Ill. App. LEXIS 234 (April 21, 2009).

FourthAmendment blog.

There has been a discussion about access to court dockets by the media, practitioners, educators, and the public to information about on-going courts-martial.  For example here is a piece on CAAFLog.  While I have been a supporter of transparency, I from time to time wish we could do as other common law countries do about pretrial publicity in criminal cases – which is generally not much.

We go through a lot of handwringing, black markers, and sealing of documents to protect the names of victims of sexual assault for example.  Yet we pay scant regard for the privacy and rights of the individual accused.  Rarely do we see the media flurry and retractions when the accused is found not guilty.  Yet how does that accused put his life back in the box after an acquittal?  

So it’s with interest I have noted two New Zealand court-martial cases – here and here.

In its decision Wednesday in Kansas v. Ventris (No. 07-1356), the Supreme Court ruled that the government may impeach a defendant’s testimony using statements obtained during an interrogation that violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, even though the prosecution would be barred from using such tainted evidence as part of its case in chief.

So starts the analysis of the Supreme Court decision in Kansas v. Ventris on SCOTUSBlog.

There is a different take on Ventris at Mark A. Godsey, Thoughts on Kansas v. Ventris, CrimProf Blog, 30 April 2009.

Here is another read this article about a court-martial in New Zealand.  Same question, what’s different?

I mentioned an article yesterday about the court-martial of a New Zealand army officer.  I wondered if you’d noticed the same thing.

What’s the officers name?

The question relates to how other countries deal with trial by media.

Justice Souter’s nomination, although apparently predictable, is in the news.  Here is an interesting perspective on how his retirement and Senator Specter’s “defection” may impact the nominee to replace Justice Souter and all of the administrations future judicial nominations.

Prof. Michael C. Dorf, How Specter’s Defection Could Make it Harder to Confirm Pres. Obama’s Judicial Nominations, Dorf on Law, 28 April 2009.

Here is a piece on Kevin from the 28 April 2009, Washington Post.

The Kansas Court of Appeals continues the tradition of citation to anecdotal legal authority.  See The cult of Sir Cloudesly Shovell, CAAFLog, 21 April 2009.

It appears that the Kansas Court of Appeals cited the little watched short running show “Branded” as a basis to overturn a trial judges requirement that a convicted child abuser put notices on his lawn of his conviction.

ABA News, 24 April 2009.