Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In general, motive can be described as an inward emotion, passion, or feeling in a person which “is likely to lead” that person to do an “appropriate act” as “an outlet” for this emotion. See J. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 117 (3d ed. 1940) (hereafter cited as Wigmore). The defense particularly contended that the prosecutrix had a feeling of anger towards appellant and a feeling of guilt concerning herself. She argued that it was reasonable to infer that an angry person would do some act of revenge against the person who was the object of her anger. She further intimated that a person experiencing guilt would do some act of revenge against the person who caused this feeling of guilt to surface. The particular acts to be inferred from this emotional state of mind in the prosecutrix were her false accusations that appellant raped her. No argument has been presented by the Government which would lead us to conclude that such acts of revenge could not be reasonably considered appropriate outlets for these emotions. Id.

United States v. Dorsey, 16 M.J. 1, 4 (C.M.A. 1983).

If you have been falsely accused of a sexual offense you are not alone.  I agree and understand that does not make your time in the hot seat happy, comfortable, or certain the truth will out.

Here is an article about sexual offense investigation and prosecution in the U.K.  U.S. service members will see similarities–sadly.

“Guilty until proven nnocent: life after a false rape allegation.” Jonathan Wells, The Telegraph (UK), some takes and inferences.

Some may remember United States v. Denedo, where the appellant won at the Supreme Court, but then his appellate lawyer failed to file a petition to CAAF in time–out of court, done, no relief.

So here’s an interesting Coast Guard case–United States v. Reese III.

Reese filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis.

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

This is an interesting read on what I usually refer to as confirmation bias.

Go to Army publications

After a lengthy absence from the general public, the following are now, again, available to the public.  (ACCA decisions are still not available.

Army Lawyer.

A year ago an O-4 client was accused of various physical assaults on his son over an eight-year period.  He faced two charges with a total of 10 specifications.  Prior to trial we were able to identify very helpful information about the credibility of the allegations, despite there being medical evidence and prosecution expert testimony.  Prior to trial, one charge was dismissed and we proceeded to a jury trial on one charge and eight specifications.  The judge made a ruling close to the end of the prosecution case and the case was delayed several months while to prosecution appealed the judge’s ruling.  After the appeals court denied the prosecution appeal we continued the trial.  At the end of the prosecution case, the judge entered a finding of not guilty on three of the eight specifications.  At issue overall was whether the alleged acts happened, or if there were some minor acts that were exaggerated and the doctrine of parental discipline.

(A motion for a finding of not guilty is usually very easy for the prosecution to overcome because all they have to show is that there is some evidence upon which a rational jury can decide–a very low standard; and the judge isn’t allowed to make credibility evaluations.)

After all the evidence was submitted, instructions were given, and arguments were made–the members deliberated for about 3.5 hours.  They returned a finding of guilt as to one of the remaining five specifications.  After a sentencing hearing, the jury announced a sentence of “No Punishment.”  In the military, this is an approved “sentence” and effectively means that the consequences of a conviction alone are likely considered sufficient to hold the person accountable and promote rehabilitation.

We all know that military defense counsel is required to advise a client of potential sex offender registration issues since United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452, 458-59 (C.A.A.F. 2006).

With that in mind, United States v. Toth, No. 201700014 (NMCCA 28 February 2018) is worth the read.

In Toth, the appellant alleged he was misadvised in his guilty plea by his defense counsel that he would not have to register as a sex offender and that his counsel were ineffective for that reason.  At trial

We know that the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not apply at a sentencing hearing (although the Due Process Clause does).  Here we have a report of United States v. Carrillo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21731 (E.D. N.Y. Feb. 9, 2018), in which the judge held that the exclusionary rule does not apply at sentencing.  The district court judge cited to United States v. Tejada, 956 F.2d 1256, 1263 (2d Cir. 1992).

I’m used to having some media interest in my cases or being asked to comment on someone else’s.  With that in mind, I try hard to be careful on staying within bounds of what can be said or which can but shouldn’t.

The 48th Criminal Law Seminar for VACLE has this module.

Trial Publicity, Social Media, and Case Commentary: Can Litigating in the Court of Public Opinion Get Lawyers into Trouble?