The NMCCA has issued an interesting published opinion on a government appeal.
United States v. Rios. From the opinion.
At trial, the Government repeatedly sought to use Edwards’s silence after he was Mirandized as substantive proof of guilt as well as for impeachment purposes. Over Edwards’s objection, the Government emphasized in its closing that Edwards had remained silent after law enforcement showed him the contents of the suitcase, suggesting a culpable state of mind. The Government in its brief and at oral argument concedes that this was error under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), but urges that the error was harmless.
So says the Third in United States v. Edwards. Result–new trial.
And, for those who follow this issue of how the prosecution and appellate courts seek to forgive such error. The court noted:
Brady Reconstructed: An Overdue Expansion of Rights and Remedies
Leonard Sosnov
Widener University – School of Law
William Clark, Boston College, Law School, Students
June 30, 2015
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/too-drunk-to-have-sex/
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html
Of course the danger for men in particular is enhanced by the fraud propagated during sexual assault training that one drink means no consent. I think it fair to call this aspect of training a fraud because it is medically and legally false. And, in my view knowingly so.
Doe v. Regents of the University of Southern California San Diego
While the Court respects the university’s determination to address sexual abuse and violence on its campus, after reviewing the Administrative Record, the Court finds that in this particularly case, the hearing against petitioner was unfair.
No. 15-0664/AF. U.S. v. Sean J. Chero. CCA 38470. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE CONCLUDED APPELLANT’S MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT WAS 30 YEARS CONFINEMENT, TOTAL FORFEITURES AND A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE.
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 15-0476/AR. U.S. v. Eric L. Rapert. CCA 20130309. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE FINDING OF GUILTY FOR CHARGE I AND ITS SPECIFICATION FOR COMMUNICATING A THREAT IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE COMMENTS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A THREAT UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN ELONIS v. UNITED STATES, 575 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015).
Jershun v. State (FL).
TheDOD IG Semiannual Report to the Congress has been issued for the reporting period of October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015 is on line. The report complies with a requirement of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The report is a summary.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog