Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Kentucky has a similar variant of Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).

In its recent opinion in Estate of Karen Burden v. Hardison, 2020 WL 7640000 (Ky.App. 2000), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky dealt with one element of this exception and left another element for another day–says Prof. Colin Miller.

The trial court in Hardison had denied use of “videotaped statement by Karen taken under oath on November 18, 2013, prior to the filing of the complaint and Karen’s death.” The appellate court determined this was not error.

The High Court of Denmark found that the defendant was guilty of having tried to abuse his position to get his then-girlfriend and later spouse admitted to a highly coveted leadership training within the Armed Forces. He was also found guilty of attempting to abuse his position by trying to persuade a colonel to hire his girlfriend in a vacant position as a major. In addition, the defendant was found guilty of gross negligence and breach of his duty of confidentiality by giving the girlfriend access to the inbox of the defendant’s official e-mail and by forwarding emails of a confidential nature to her on matters that did not concern her.

To show the risks of appeal in some countries, the High Court increased the confinement from three to four months.

Looks like the ACCA website has been redesigned and reorganized. They now have a page for summary affirmances and a “Appellate Library,” and it looks as if this is where briefs will be found. ACCA had earlier announced it would do this. They now list “short form affirmances” in a separate list (in the past we have had to assume a summary affirmance on cases with no written opinion). The NMCCA and AFCCA post summary affirmances along with all other decisions.

The CGCCA posts appellate briefs: https://www.uscg.mil/Resources/Legal/Court-of-Criminal-Appeals/Court-of-Criminal-Appeals-Appellate-Briefs/

The CAAF posts appellate briefs of cases in which there is a grant and oral argument.

Standage v. Braithwaite, No. ELH-20-2830, (D.C. MD Dec. 22, 2020). This is the lawsuit filed by Midshipman Standage t declaratory and injunctive relief regarding his recommended disenrollment from the Naval Academy. The suit was dismissed without prejudice as not yet ripe.

Standage was the subject of Academy disciplinary actions because he was accused of sending “racist” and “insensitive” tweets about BLM and the various “riots’ around the country. The evidence is a little unclear but it appears he never was identified as a midshipman or member of the USNA.

He claims, basically that the actions violated the APA and his First Amendment rights. Reference is made in the opinion that a midshipman’s speech is not completely restricted.

when asked for my qualifications at trial I reply that I am 27b certified and 42a sworn.

United States v. Kellett, No. 202000178, 2020 CCA LEXIS 424 n.1 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 25, 2020).

Certification in one Service is effectively certification in all.

COURT OFAPPEALS-TENNESSEE (Nashville) 

See State v. Tennessee. A post-trial discovery case. The court begins, “The primary issue in this case involves the State’s delayed disclosure of obviously exculpatory evidence.” Overall a very nice cases discussing Brady-plus’s [[1]] application to post-trial matters. 

• Colin Miller in discussing this case observes that, “In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that the State has an affirmative obligation under the Due Process Clause to timely disclose material exculpatory evidence. There is a ton of precedent analyzing when evidence is material and exculpatory. Conversely, there is sparse case law regarding what is “timely” disclosure. But Thursday’s opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee in State v. Allen addressed this latter question.”

The Supreme Court has reversed CAAF in Briggs and Colins, which effectively also overrules Mangahas.

Click to access 19-108_8njq.pdf

Prof. Colin Miller begins,

Similar to its federal counterpart, Idaho Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for

A statement that:

Here is a link to the Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee.

Although the Findings in this Report outline failures in leadership, they should not be interpreted as an indictment of military commanders or the U. S. Army. While the issues raised in this Report are serious and require urgent attention, they did not result from intentional or malicious action. Rather, the climate described throughout this Report was the result of inaction in critical areas like the SHARP Program that are critical to the health and safety of our Soldiers.

This climate was the product of a mindset developed over the course of almost two decades of intense military conflicts and countering threats to the national security of this Nation around the globe. Military readiness became paramount over all other responsibilities, without fully appreciating that integrity and respect between and among Soldiers is a critical component of military readiness. Over the years, those in command at Fort Hood, however, failed to make the connection between the health and safety of the Soldiers and mission readiness. This paradigm of benign neglect was allowed to take root over time at Fort Hood, at the expense of Soldiers, particularly females in combat units. Continue reading

As the cannabis industry continues to take root state by state, the House of Representatives voted in favor of removing marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The House voted Friday on the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or MORE Act, which decriminalizes cannabis and clears the way to erase nonviolent federal marijuana convictions. The Senate is unlikely to approve the bill.

So reports NBC News.