Court-Martial Trial Practice

Professor Friedman, a true guru of “confrontation” issues notes:

It appears that the next case in the Melendez-Diaz line will come very quickly. The Supreme Court granted cert today in Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505, seeking review of People v. Williams, 939 N.E.2d 268 (Ill. 2010). The case presents the issue of what I have called the "not for the truth" end-run in the context of expert evidence: The Illinois Supreme Court held that the absent analyst’s report was introduced not for the truth of what it asserted but rather "to show the underlying facts and data [the in-court witness] used before rendering an expert opinion in this case." I will write something more substantive on this later.

And he opines a little with early thoughts on Bullcoming.

There was a piece over the weekend that Bozivech would have his sentencing today.  It appears it will be delayed until 8 August, reports the Miami Herald.

Goffman on the Jury:  Real Juror’s Attention to the “Offstage” of trials.

Social psychologist Erving Goffman, in his classic work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, provides a framework that explains why jurors may turn their attention at the courthouse to information not formally presented from the witness stand. We dub this “offstage observation,” a type of juror behavior that has not been systematically examined empirically. Analyzing a unique data source of 50 actual jury deliberations in civil trials, we find that jurors do look to the offstage in evaluating the claims of the parties. However, in contrast to predictions, these observations played a surprisingly minor role in the jury deliberation process.

Stars & Stripes reports on some “new” developments at the [in]famous USACIL.

The military’s premier crime lab should be a place of sober scientific research, but lately it seems more like the set of a soap opera consumed with scandal and intrigue.

In less than four years, at least six internal investigations have been launched and six complaints filed against managers. The accusations and counter-accusations include racism, sexual harassment, assault and fraud.

Several items crossed my .net over the last few days.  The topic is not new and will remain with us for some time.

Army Times reports:

Officials at Joint Base Lewis-McChord believe they’re making progress against the stigma that keeps some soldiers from getting help for mental health issues.

Daily Journal blog is reporting that Bozicevich goes back to court on Monday for his sentencing hearing.

Many years ago I spent a lot of time prosecuting and defending “pack rats.”  There was a slew of “national security cases” in the late 1980’s, post-Walker.  It appears there is a new name for personnel who took classified material home either by accident (in the briefcase or notebook), or because they wanted to have them as examples for future work.  That was in the days before just about everything was available in digits and electronically.  Dwight “My Liege” Sullivan will remember, but won’t tell, such a case – McGuinness., 35 M.J. 149 (N.M.C.M.R. 1992); actually this would be when DMLS and I first “met.”

Now it is called “electronic spillage.”  Interesting, just keeping up with the times.

Navy Times reports:

Army Times reports:  A Joint Base Lewis-McChord soldier convicted in the deaths of three Afghan civilians last year is backing away from an earlier statement that one of his superiors explicitly approved the first killing.

WAVY.com reports:  Crew members of the Coast Guard Cutter Venturous engaged in clandestine hazing in the berthing areas of the ship between summer 2007 and winter 2009, according to a two-year investigation by the Coast Guard.

North County Times reports:  A Camp Pendleton Marine convicted of leading the kidnapping and slaying of an Iraqi man in 2006 has been recommended for parole by officials at Miramar[.]   [B]rig officials at Miramar voted unanimously in favor of granting parole to Sgt. Larry Hutchins III, who has been behind bars for much of the last five years.  Hutchins’ case now goes to the Naval Clemency and Parole Board in Washington, which is scheduled to consider his case on July 13.

The US Supreme Court has decided Bullcoming.  Surrogate testimony is no good.

The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution  to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing  a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification.  We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement.  The accused’s right is to be confronted with  the  analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had  an  opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.

The US Supreme Court acknowledges what others refuse to acknowledge.  There is the potential for human error, even when using GS/MS equipment.  Slip op. at 4 (with footnotes [n.1] to support what we all know, or should know).

Army Times reports:  The director of the Army Substance Abuse Program at Carlisle Barracks is on leave pending further action after his arrest on cocaine distribution charges.