Articles Posted in Uncategorized

One of my favorite newspapers, The Onion, has this comment on Stop-loss from the person in the street.

I'll use the posting of JURIST to indicate that:

The US House Judiciary Committee [official website] on Wednesday approved a bill HR 951 that would limit the government's ability to compel

reporters to disclose confidential sources. Under the terms of the Free

tip:   to Crime & Consequences, who gives a Hat tip to Howard Bashman at How Appealing for his post reporting on an audio segment on NPR's "Day to Day"

discussing the reliability of eyewitness identification in criminal

trials.  The segment, from Slate.com writer Dahlia Lithwick, dicusses

United States v. Pitcher, 05-3182r, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103 (2d Cir. March 11, 2009).  In this case appellant claimed IAC.  He claimed on direct appeal that he wouldn't have plead not guilty, but for the overly rosy picture of his chances of success painted by his trial defense counsel.  He lost.  So he took a habeas petition and succeeded in having the district court vacate the findings and sentence based on IAC.  Pitcher v. United States, 371 F. Supp. 2d 246

(E.D.N.Y. 2005). 

I may have read too much into the case, but there is an underlying theme that defense counsel may have a duty to strong arm an 'obviously guilty' client into a pretrial agreement.  There were issues raised in the collateral attack about the procedures under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255, which aren't relevant for our story.  The points for trial defense counsel are the client who lies, giving a proper assessment of the client's chances based on the facts available, and it's improper to arm-twist a client into accepting a pretrial agreement.

Entitled as a "shameless plug" Mike Navarre is moderating a 1.5 hr CLE tomorrow.  Here, shamelessly, is the whole item lifted.

No. 09-0185/AR.  U.S. v. Makisha I. MORTON.  CCA 20060458.  Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER, AFTER FINDING THE EVIDENCE FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILTY TO THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE AND ITS SPECIFICATION (FORGERY), THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ON A THEORY NOT PRESENTED TO THE TRIER OF FACT.

The court might consider the resolution in United States v. Thompson, 67 M.J. 106 (C.A.A.F. 2009).

A little off topic, but I thought sufficiently interesting for a military justice audience.

Martha Neil, DOJ Files USERRA Suit Against Indiana Law Firm, ABA Journal Law News Now, 16 March 2009.

Referenced is another:  Matthew Whittle, lawsuit involving braswell and former magistrate settled, Goldsboro News-Argus (on-line), 8 March 2009).

Yes, this is a story of some naval police who sued the DON for using real live "pepper" spray to have realistic training.  It's possible these are civilian police employed by DON.

Here are several articles of some interest.

Roger P. Alford, International or Foreign Law as an Interpretive Aid in Supreme Court Jurisprudence, 9(3) Engage 79 (October 2008).

Tom Gede, Kent Scheidegger, Fon Rychlak, The Supreme Court's 21st Century Trajectory in Criminal Cases, 9(3) Engage 44 (October 2008).

It app-ears that ear print comparisons have been advocated as a method of identifying a perpetrator.  But, it app-ears that the British courts are giving the so-called expert an earful of doubt.

Andre A. Moenssens, Another Ear Print Conviction Reversed!  (Prof. Moenssens is one of several law professors to follow on issues of forensics and evidence.  A lot more can be found at Forensic-Evidence.com.

Credibility is always an issue.