Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogAdam A. Field, Beyond Michigan v. Bryant: A Practicable Approach to Testimonial Hearsay and Ongoing Emergencies, 2012 IL. L. Rev. 1265 (2012).
Articles Posted in Uncategorized
Confronting experts
Now that the current slew of confrontation cases are decided it’s time to regroup.
Let’s start with my former evidence professor, Paul Gianelli (a former Army JA).
Confrontation, Experts, and Rule 703
In the Supremes
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog has a preview of Perry v. New Hampshire.
At 10 a.m. next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument on a case seeking clarification of when trial courts must exclude the testimony of an eyewitness to a crime because the testimony was unreliable. In the case of Perry v. New Hampshire (10-8974), arguing for Barion Perry of Nashua, N.H., will be Richard Guerriero, a public defender in Concord, N.H. Representing the state will be its Attorney General, Michael A. Delaney of Concord, with 20 minutes of time. Supporting New Hampshire, for the federal government as an amicus, with ten minutes of time, will be Nicole A. Saharsky, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.
United States v. Rhodes, 42 M.J. 287 (C.A.A.F. 1995), seems to be ‘the’ military case.
Police created exigent circumstances
I don’t know that we’ve had this issue come up in military cases, but there’s a first time for everything. Plus this case highlights potentially confusing “tests” that arise from different courts.
During oral argument in Kentucky v. King on Wednesday, the Court struggled to find the proper test for determining when police are prohibited from justifying a warrantless search with exigent circumstances that they create. Because neither side supported the Kentucky Supreme Court’s two-prong test, a straightforward affirmance seems very unlikely; instead, the Court focused on whether the state’s proposed “lawfulness” test or another of the five tests currently being used by lower courts is best.
H/T to SCOTUSBlog.
CAAF publishes Hutchins
United States v. Hutchins.
Chief Judge Effron writes for a unanimous court.
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy certified the case to this Court for review of the following issues:
I. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SEVERED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH CAPTAIN BASS?
II. WHETHER UNDER R.C.M. 505(d)(2)(B), THE NAVYMARINE CORPS COURT INCORRECTLY FOUND NO “GOOD CAUSE” ON THE RECORD FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF APPELLANT’S SECOND DETAILED DEFENSE COUNSEL WITH ANOTHER COUNSEL?
III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD AND ERRONEOUSLY PRESUMED, WITHOUT ASSESSING, PREJUDICE AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCE, WHERE APPELL[EE]’S STATUTORY RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WERE SATISFIED THROUGH TRIAL?
New Mexico brief-Bullcoming
Prof. Friedman links to the respondents’s brief in Bullcoming v. New Mexico.
Two Supremes grants
Two Supreme Court grants of certiorari should be of interest to MJ practitioners. Here are links to SCOTUSBLog for the case materials.
Missouri v. Frye
Issue: Can a defendant who validly pleads guilty assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that, but for counsel’s error in failing to communicate a plea offer, he would have pleaded guilty with more favorable terms? What remedy, if any, should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures?
Post-trial duties
NMCCA has decided United States v. Owens.
The appellant asserts that the attorney-client relationship with his detailed trial defense counsel was terminated without good cause, leaving the appellant legally and factually without post-trial representation. The basis for the appellant’s claim is that substitute counsel failed to establish an attorney-client relationship with the appellant prior to receipt of the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR).
The court makes clear in footnote 3, that:
LTC Lakin
Thanks to safeguardourconstitution
LTC Lakin sitrep
We finished around 1700 with the last government witness. Looks like the government will rest in the AM.
Dwight will be blogging a little later and we’ll be on RealityCheck radio at 2100.
Remember this phrase, “You have had your chance.”