Court-Martial Trial Practice

We all know that a defense counsel (and for that matter trial counsel) should not trust what comes out of a military drug lab, USACIL, or DCFL – I won’t rehash the problems over the years – which may well be continuing.  While the problems have been substantial, DOD and courts have been quite happy to rely on the various “forensic” labs to put or keep people in jail.

So, why does this surprise me.

“Review Found FBI Hair Analysis Flaws in 250 Cases, But DOJ Didn’t Inform Defendants and Public (does this sound like USACIL or what)” says the ABA Journal. 

Evidence of past false complaints of sexual offenses by an alleged victim of a sexual offense is not within the scope of this rule and is not objectionable when otherwise admissible.

Appendix 22, p. A22-36, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012).

Pennsylvania Public Defenders Rebel Against Crushing Caseloads.

[Washington] Supreme Court Adopts Standards for Indigent Defense:  Case Limit Guidelines Effective in 2013.

In Faison v. Belcher, a prisoner at the USDB sought to get the federal district court in Kansas to grant a habeas for several issues, including a Fosler issue.

NOTE:  “If you Have a Zero-Tolerance Policy, Why Aren’t You Doing Anything?: Using the Uniform Code of Military Justice to Combat Human Trafficking Abroad, 80 Geo Wash L. Rev. 1255 (2012).

There are a number of resources available to counsel for research beyond what is in the red book.

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service is just one:  https://www.ncjrs.gov/

Thanks to a colleague for pointing out a new publication that may assist the defense in particular.

There have been discussions from time to time how convening authorities refer odd-ball or arguably frivolous cases to trial.

Who’s Guarding the Henhouse? How the American Prosecutor Came to Devour Those He is Sworn to Protect

Jonathan Rapping

Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School
June 10, 2012
Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 51, 2012

Abstract:
Every day, all across America, prosecutors charge people with crimes that the criminal justice system is not sufficiently funded to handle. Most of the accused are indigent citizens forced to rely on the services of over-burdened public defenders. In a system that lacks the resources to resolve these cases at trial, or even to spend the requisite capital at the pre-trial stage, prosecutors have found creative ways to process the vast majority of these cases without the expense associated with providing the accused actual justice. With an ever-expanding list of behaviors and actions deemed criminal, and increasingly harsh sentencing options for these offenses, prosecutors are able to put pressure on most criminal defendants to give up many of their most fundamental Constitutional rights and plead guilty to avoid potentially draconian outcomes. While many prosecutors see this as a cheap and effective way to justly punish wrongdoers, this course of action has largely replaced our reliance on principles of justice such as the right to counsel, the right to trial by jury, and the role of an independent judiciary determining a punishment that fits the crime. By undermining basic principles of justice so crucial to our legal system, one might ask whether this way of handling criminal cases is antithetical to the prosecutor’s critical role as minister of justice.
This article argues that when a prosecutor charges more cases than he knows the system can justly resolve due to resource limitations, he violates his ethical obligation to seek justice. It further argues that many prosecutors fail to appreciate how they violate their duty to justice because of a culture that promotes this behavior. Finally, it suggests that prosecutors must be trained to resist these systemic pressures, and to act in accordance with values consistent with justice, if they are to fulfill their intended role in the criminal justice system.