The defense wins one.
Actually, yesterday I had the pleasure of being a semi-final judge for the National Security Law Moot Court Competition hosted at George Washington Univ. Law School. 23 teams from law schools around the country competed.
The two issues before the "U.S. Supreme Court" were:
United States v. Arrington, 296 Fed. Appx. 646, No. 08-4018, unpublished op. (10th Cir. 14 October 2009).
The estranged wife of the accused had no actual or apparent authority to consent to a search of the accused's hotel room. This was so even though the room was rented in the wife's mother's name and the wife paid for the room.
The prosecution of civilians at court-martial has been an interesting development since the Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, changes. For a little background see the earlier musings on this topic.
There has been only one private contractor ever indicted by the Department under MEJA for any sort of physically abusive or violent crime – Aaron Langston of Snowflake, Arizona, charged with assaulting a fellow contractor in Iraq with a knife. See United States v. Aaron Bridges Langston, CR-07-210-PHX (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Ariz., Indictment, Feb. 27, 2007).
Reported in, US military court-martialing civilian contractor Ali while DOJ slumbers, 19 May 2008.
Karen Franklin reports a “guest” piece, by Prof. Mnookin, Professor and Vice Dean, UCLA Law School. See actually, Jennifer L. Mnookin, Clueless ‘science,’LA Times, 19 February 2009.
The article is about the congressionally funded National Research Council report on forensic science (look to my earlier posts). Several points that have been on my mind for some years.
Prof. Colin Miller, The Bloodhound Gang: Detroit Free Press Article Addresses Admissibility Of Bloodhound Tracking Evidence, EvidenceProf Blog, 19 February 2009. Professor Miller notes the majority rule that courts generally admit evidence that bloodhounds tracked down a defendant. The minority rule is that such evidence is per se inadmissible because:
constitutes hearsay;
(3) the defendant is deprived of his
There has been much discussion about electronic filings in military appellate litigation. Some of that has been generated because of how civilian courts operate electronically. And of course, more recently as a result of the supposed missed deadline brouhaha in United States v. Rodriguez. CAAFLog has much information on these two issues (if my link doesn't work, just use "Rodriguez" as your term in the CAAFLog search box. But this item below is also interesting.
See, Donna Bader, The Perils of the Electronic Age, An Appeal to Reason blog, 8 February 2009.
Those with an interest in forensics
have been waiting for the much touted National Research Council report
on the state of "forensic science" in the U.S. The National
MAJ Joel P. Cummings, Is Article 125, Sodomy a Dead Letter in Light of Lawrence v. Texas and the New Article 120? The Army Lawyer, January 2009.
United States v. Bell, No. 06-4413, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2901 (6th Cir. 17 February 2009). Recently published, this case is a decent primer on automobile stops with drug dog sniffs: what turns a traffic stop into a seizure, etc.
Do you have clients who want to know about search warrants or authorizations, and do you want information and access? Well of course. Here's an interesting case which raises the issue of access to search warrant materials pre-indictment under the Fourth Amendment — or in the military pre-preferral. If the premise of the case is correct, then NCIS, OSI, CID, CGIS, or the SJA can't just gaff you off when you ask for the search authorization materials prior to preferral. A writ of mandamus would seem to be in order.
In re Searches & Seizures, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107087 (E.D. Cal. December 19, 2008).
Note, there is no "sealing" of pre-indictment documents in the military as there is in federal district court.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog