Court-Martial Trial Practice

KSALLink reports:  A Fort Riley soldier is killed during a standoff at a motel in Abilene. . . . The Army says that Evenson was reported Absent Without Leave by military authorities Tuesday when he failed to appear for the second day of his court-martial for rape of a child. He was tried in absentia and on Wednesday he was convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

Salina Journal is reporting a “seven hour” standoff.

The charges will get set-aside because he has died during the course of his trial and appeal.  The effect of that will be the family will get death benefits, etc.  “An appellant is entitled to an appeal of right and his death prior to completion of that appeal generally entitles him to abatement of the proceedings ab initio.” United States v. Rorie, 58 M.J. 399, 400 (C.A.A.F. 2003).

Slightly off topic.  The Richmond Times Despatch reports on the pending appellate action of the “Norfolk Four.”  Seems to me this might be a coram nobis case had it been a court-martial.

From FOB Tacoma, The News Tribune reports:  The Army is moving forward with most of the charges it pressed against a Joint Base Lewis-McChord sergeant linked to its Stryker “kill team” investigation despite a July report that expressed skepticism about the soldier’s guilt.

 Stars & Stripes reports:  The Air Force is holding an investigative hearing this week at Kadena Air Base to determine whether a staff sergeant will stand trial for the January death of a fellow airman, according to the 18th Wing public affairs office.

Professor Freidman the Great Confrontationist has posted the Petitioner’s Brief and Appendix for Williams v. Illinois.  This case is one of several we should be following that will come from the Supremes.  This issue presented in Williams is:

Whether the prosecution violates the Confrontation Clause when it presents, pursuant to a state rule of evidence, the substance  of a testimonial forensic laboratory report through the trial testimony of an expert witness who took no part in the reported forensic analysis, where the defendant had no opportunity to confront the  analysts who authored the report.

Scroll down on his page and you’ll find initial thoughts on Williams.  SCOTUSBlog has the case “file.”

Wuterich v. United States.

Police came to do a knock-and-talk, and defendant objected to a search of the bedroom he shared with his wife. When he objected, the police took the wife and her mother outside to talk about consent. The district court’s effort to find a hierarchy of privacy interests in the home has no foundation inRandolph, and this consent over objection violated Randolph. United States v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18006 (6th Cir. August 29, 2011).

The blogger references an attorney at The Federal Criminal Appeals blog of Kaiser Law Firm.  Included in that article might be the perfect holiday season gift.

h/t fourthamendment.com

I posted about eyewitness testimony the other day.

Here is an article to read.

Sandra Guerra Thompson (University of Houston Law Center) has postedJudicial Gatekeeping of Police-Generated Witness Testimony on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Yes, this season appears to be the one to address a number of lingering or ambiguous (or not so ambiguous) issues about Mil. R. Evid. 412.  So, it seems apt that the last opinion for this season is out:  United States v. Ellenbrock.

We granted review to determine whether the military judge erred in applying Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412 to prevent Appellant from introducing evidence of the alleged victim’s first marital affair to show a motive to fabricate the accusation against Appellant.  We hold that the evidence was constitutionally required, that the military judge abused her discretion by refusing to admit the evidence, and that it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Appellant moved under M.R.E. 412 to introduce testimony that CL had engaged in a prior extramarital affair to support his theory that CL had a motive to lie about the consensual nature of the sex with him, which was to protect her marriage.

United States v. Sweeney.  This is a Crawford-Blazier case.

In the Blazier cases, we set forth a straightforward path for analyzing the admissibility of drug testing reports under the Confrontation Clause.

. . .

The CAAF recently decided United States v. Baker, an Article 62 appeal of an MJ’s ruling suppressing an identification.

There is quite a bit of legitimate research indicating that even 12 bishops might give an erroneous identification of a suspect either in witness interviews or through an out of court identification (photo or lineup).  For a current example: 

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the due process clause requires judges to exclude at least some eyewitness testimony based on unreliability, the New York Times reports. The new case, Perry v. New Hampshire, seeks more specifics about the kinds of identifications warranting a closer look. Do due process protections apply to all eyewitness IDs made under suggestive circumstances? Or just those IDs made when the suggestive circumstances were orchestrated by police?

DOD Live has a piece from the Surgeon General of the Navy about “spice.”

The Navy’s zero tolerance policy for drug abuse includes possession of substances or designated products that contain synthetic cannabinoid compounds, including Spice, fake marijuana or fake pot, herbal incense or potpourri, salvia divinorum, bath salts, Skunk, Genie, Blaze, Dream, Spike 99, Ex-Ses, Spark, Fusion, Dark Knight, Yucatan Fire, K2, and many others.

CAAF decided United States v. Girouard.  The court affirmed and reversed some findings and authorized either a Sales or a rehearing on sentence.  Based on the Army Times article, it appears the Army is awaiting a resentencing hearing.