The next up in a series of confrontation cases. I’ve already put you onto the great Professor Friedman.
Here are the links courtesy of SCOTUSBlog to the documents beyond the Illinois opinion.
Certiorari-stage documents
Let’s been lots going on with the DADT issue. Yesterday Washington Blade reports: A federal appellate court in California on Wednesday overturned a stay on an injunction that had barred the U.S. government from enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gay service members to start serving openly in the armed forces. And the New York Times reports: A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a two-page order against the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” in a case brought by the groupLog Cabin Republicans.
Yes you do. But it “expired” six months ago, have a nice day, oh and here’s your court-martial charge sheet.
Military.com reports: Soldiers who take their prescription medications six months after dispensation and pop positive on a urinalysis test could see their careers go down the toilet. Changes made to Army Medical Command regulation 40-51, issued by the surgeon general via an All Army Activities message Feb. 23, announced that controlled substances could only be used up to six months from the prescription issuance date. This announcement may seem minor, but .. . . All it would take is a positive urinalysis test.
CAAF has issued opinions in:
United States v. Schubert.
Judge Baker writes for the majority, joined by Ryan and Stucky. Judge Erdmann wrote a dissent in part and a concurrence in the result and he was joined by the chief judge.
Reuters is reporting that MAJ Hasan’s case has been referred to a death penalty eligible court-martial
So I’m reading a ROT for a case tried after 2005.
During the challenge for cause part of the trial the trial counsel seeks to challenge member(s) under the liberal grant policy.
An early explanation of the liberal grant comes from United States v. White, 36 M.J. 284, 287 (C.M.A. 1993).
I get asked a lot about upgrades to discharges and whether it’s possible to enlist, or whether it’s possible to be retained —
Army Times reports: The Army is cracking down on soldiers who are drug users, problem drinkers and troublemakers.
I used to tell people that when there was a lot of combat action and people were getting killed and the economy was good it’s possible that the person would get a break. In the last few years I’ve changed to – generally you aren’t getting a break: it’s a bad economy and recruiters are doing well in making production, and the economy is bad.
Air Force Times reports: Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has asked the Defense Department to reconsider the decision to downgrade three one-star legal billets, saying each position merits “having a general officer in the seat.”
Marine Corps Times reports: The military says three Southern California Marine corporals are facing charges of defrauding the government for entering into sham marriages for financial gain.
Navy Times reports: A Coast Guard lieutenant has been disciplined and permanently relieved of authority over a Petersburg, Alaska-based cutter after an investigation showed he directed the vessel to get under way while he was intoxicated [by alcohol use].
The India times reports that Sen. Grassley is seeking an investigation of USACIL.
No, we are not discussing Macbeth.
The great Professor Friedman, on his confrontation rights blog has some thoughts and commentary and confrontation issues, some of which involve the recently granted Williams v. Illinois. In his recent comment he reminds us of two errors prosecutors like to commit: making an end run around hearsay and confrontation, often coupled with a talismanic incantation that the testimony or evidence isn’t offered for the truth. (This BTW is another aspect of the “context” issue I’ve posted about already: Just laying the groundwork your honor! Background testimony by police; Investigator context testimony .)
The point Professor Friedman is making is that we often make the correct hearsay objection, but we also need to consider making a 6th amendment objection to preserve the issue.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
