Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Federal Evidence blog  has a nice update on S.448 which is the Senate version of H.R. 985.  Basically, although termed the “Free Flow of Information Act,” it is the reporters privilege rule that has been circulating for some time now.  Actual status?  According to the bloggers:

Whether the Senate Judiciary Committee adopts the revision to S. 448 or not, the prospect for a quick passage of a media shield law would pose a challenge. At the present time Congressional leaders are suggesting that the session would not extend long past November. Even if a revised S. 448 was passed by the Committee and received passage on the floor, it would still have to be reconciled with the House version of the measure, which departs from many of the standards set out in the revision to S. 448.

United States v. Garcia.  This case deals with the ongoing perplexing issue in Coast Guard (and Air Force) cases where recorded Article 32’s are not done and where the defense is prohibited from making their own recording.  A secondary issue was a removal of defense counsel without the client’s consent.

CGCCA found no constitutional violation in denying the defense from making a recording.  However, and here’s the lesson:

This is not to say that the convening authority did not abuse his discretion in denying the defense request to be permitted to tape-record the proceedings and provide tapes to the government. We do not reach that question.

Stars & Stripes reports:

A Navy doctor faces 24 counts of wrongful sexual contact and is accused of assaulting at least 15 patients he treated in Japan and Kuwait since 2007.

The Arizona Star net reports:

Air Force personnel "scattered like cockroaches" when deputies were called to a rowdy house party on Tucson’s south side that left one airman dead and another accused of his murder, a military jury heard Tuesday.

Military.com reports:

Prosecutors brought felony charges Monday against an Army reservist who allegedly stalked Ryan Seacrest, including showing up at the "American Idol" host’s studio and attacking one of his bodyguards.

Uzomah is a sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserve and serves as a combat medic[.]

Navy Times reports:

A senior Coast Guard official was charged Tuesday with multiple offenses, including sodomy, indecent acts and conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman.

Newsminer.com reports:

He is accused of sexual improprieties involving multiple women – some identified as enlisted Coast Guard personnel – in numerous locations around Alaska and the Lower 48. The alleged offenses also include fraud, adultery, indecent language and soliciting another to commit an offense. The allegations cover a period between November 2004 and shortly before Hamilton was relieved of his duties as the Coast Guard’s commander for the Anchorage sector in May.

File/KTUU-DT

Alaska 2KTUU.com reports:

Hamilton was charged with six specifications of failure to obey a lawful general order; two specifications of false official statements; two specifications of indecent acts; three specifications of sodomy; one specification of fraud against the United States; eight specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman; two specifications of fraternization; three specifications of adultery; one specification of indecent language; and three specifications of soliciting another to commit an offense[.]

Arizona Star is reporting:

Court-martial proceedings got underway today for a Davis-Monthan airman accused of killing another D-M airman in 2007.

For those following developments in United States v. Blazier, here are some status updates on Briscoe v. Virginia, from Prof. Friedman.

In Blazier (and a somewhat similar case) CAAF has granted the following issues:

No. 09-0441/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua C. BLAZIER.  CCA 36988.  Review granted on the following issue:

A former Army soldier who claims he put child pornography on his cell phone to help law enforcement catch those who produced the images was sentenced Monday to 18 months in federal prison.

www.azstarnet.com

CAAFLog is reporting that CAAF has granted the following issue in United States v. Blazier.

Whether, in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Appellant was denied meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses in violation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the military judge did not compel the government to produce essential Brooks Law officials who handled Appellant’s urine samples and instead allowed the expert toxicologist to testify to non-admissible hearsay.  See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009).

I’m a happy man.  I have been raising this issue in every urinalysis case I’ve done since Crawford.  Unfortunately I’ve not been able to convince too many others to raise it.  Finally CAAF is going to take a look at the issue.  May well lose, but at least there’s a chance.  You can’t win unless you raise the issue at trial.