SCOTUS heard oral argument in Maryland v. Shatzer on Monday, 5 October 2009.
Issue: Whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later.
Here is a link to the transcript of that oral argument.
FORT BRAGG, N.C. — A soldier in North Carolina has been given a two-year prison sentence after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a fellow Fort Bragg paratrooper.
The Fayetteville Observer reported that Sgt. Justin A. Boyle also was convicted of conspiracy in the July 2008 death of Pfc. Luke Brown of Fredericksburg, Va., whose family told the jury they have forgiven Boyle and asked that he not be punished.
United States v. Gipson, ARMY 2007 0521 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 28 September 2009).
This case has an unusual [if mundane] procedural history.. . .
Appellant claims on appeal he was prejudiced by the SJA’s failure to serve him with new matters in the addendum, in violation of R.C.M. 1106(f)(7); and this court erred in its Reinert holding that (1) the government’s writ of prohibition was an extraordinary matter, and (2) the military judge did not have authority to grant appellant additional days of confinement.
Earlier comments on this subject are here and here.
In particular here is the new NCIS policy. NCIS video/audio taping is not new as this report suggests — Naval Criminal Investigative Service: Fraud Interview Policies Similar to Other Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (Letter Report, 04/07/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-117).
In fiscal year 1996, NCIS agents videotaped 56 interviews and 23 interrogations, 51 (or 65 percent) of which involved child abuse cases. Most of the remaining videotapings involved cases of assaults, homicides, and rapes. NCIS fraud agents said that they audiotape very few interviews.
Courtesy of CAAFLog the agenda is online.
You can register and pay your $50.00 online here at the JAA website.
Unfortunately they have not yet posted specifics of the location of the Symposium at GMU Law.
2010 Judicial Conference and Continuing Legal Education Program
March 10 – 11, 2010
The Catholic University of America
Columbus School of Law
3600 John McCormack Rd, NE
Washington, DC
September 17, 2009
The Supreme Court: Past and Prologue A Look at 2008 and October 2009 Terms
10:30 am – 7:00 pm, Cato Conference
To celebrate Constitution Day and the publication of the eighth volume of the annual Cato Supreme Court Review.
DC Conference on the SCOTUS certiorari process
The Yale Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic and The Yale Law Journal Online, the forthcoming online platform of The Yale Law Journal, will host a half-day conference, "Important Questions of Federal Law": Assessing the Supreme Court’s Case Selection Process, on September 18, 2009, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The conference will consider the nature and causes of changes in the Supreme Court’s docket in recent years, as well as suggestions for reform of the certiorari process. The conference is made possible by the generous support of the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund.
The government [just barely] showed that the drug dog and the handler were "well qualified" (Illinois v. Caballes). While the dog was certified through 2006, it was not certified since, but its general reliability was enough. [Essentially, the handler can make the dog qualify by testifying to a good track record.] United States v. Colon-Arenas, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77953 (N.D. Ind. August 25, 2009).
/tip fourthamendment.com.
The Air Force says an Alaska-based airman has been sentenced to 90 days confinement and 90 days hard labor for malingering — intentionally hurting oneself to avoid deployment.
Army Times, 3 September 2009.
Here is a link to the brief in Briscoe v. Virginia. The case is a follow on to Crawford and Melendez-Diaz.
Here is the Issue as reported by SCOTUSWiki.
Briscoe v. Commonwealth of VA: If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness?
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog