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.
As noted earlier, the Smith Amendment was changed recently. An astute reader has provided a new name for us — the commenter refers now to the "Bond Amendment." Instead of the old Smith Amendment at 10 U.S. Code 986, the new law on security clearances for persons sentenced to confinement or certain punitive discharges is at 50 U.S.C. 435b, Section 3002, Pub. L. 108-375, §1062, 118 Stat. 2056. For quick comparison here are the two as suggested by Mr.Henderson.
The Smith Amendment, 10 U. S. Code 986prohibited only DoD from granting or continuing security clearances for:
Some snippets from cases released to LEXIS.
Plain view.
Greg Bruno, Backgrounder: Closing Guantanamo, Council on Foreign Relations, 12 February 2009.
You will notice a reference to trial by court-martial under the UCMJ.
Some, including legal experts with the Congressional Research Service,
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog