Court-Martial Trial Practice

Professor Berman has found a somewhat pessimistic view of Padilla v. Kentucky.

have to get into the question of when is a military person discharged.

United States v. Butler.

Federal Evidence Review has this interesting case about application of the excited utterance exception in a child abuse case.  While the court found error, it was ultimately decided to be harmless.  But the case is worth looking at as a primer on how to attack admission as an excited utterance.

In trial involving aggravated sexual abuse of a child, the victim’s statements to a physician’s assistant made “three years after the first alleged instance of abuse, and roughly a week after the most recent abuse” were not admissible as excited utterances under FRE 803(2), in United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2007) (No. 06-1693).

Stars & Stripes reports:

The Army has relieved Col. James H. Johnson III of command of the 173rd Airborne Brigade for serious allegations “that were substantiated” following an extensive review, said the deputy commander of V Corps.

Stars & Stripes reports:

Of interest:

Holding the Line: Understanding the Role of Independent Legal Counsel in Command Decision-Making

Sharpening the Quill and Sword: Maximizing Experience in Military Justice

From Prof. Berman at Sentencing Law & Policy.

Should prosecutors be offered bonuses for conducting trials and getting convictions?

SJA to DC:  My TC’s don’t have enough court time and experience, so that’s why my recommended deal is so high, if you don’t like it try the case so my TC can get experience?

The Nation is running some exclusive book excerpts:

“Bradley Manning:  Truth and Consequences.”

Part I,  Part II.

I posted a while back about this.

Federal Government Compares Seminoles to Al Qaeda in Military Commissions Case.

Now it appears from this in the Miami Herald that more questions have been raised.

Here’s some more from the Havelock News on the former MCAS Cherry Point CO:

Fast on the heels of a former Cherry Point air station commander’s guilty plea to drinking and driving charges on Monday, the government began hearing evidence Tuesday on whether he should face court martial. . . . . The attorneys had not been advised by Marine Corps trial counsel Lt. Col. Valerie Danyluk of the new charges, including wrongful use of government resources, making false statements, a continued improper relationship with a civilian employee after being warned, and wrongfully attempting to impede justice.

The Examiner reports:

The Hastings Law Journal has this Essay:

Finding the Error in Daubert, by Mark Haug and Emily Baird

The Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. laid down the standard for admissibility of expert testimony. We believe the best standard is simpler than the one chosen by the Court: The Daubert standard really is about discerning the trustworthiness of expert, and trustworthiness is best determined through an expert’s accounting of the error within his testimony. Lower courts have struggled with the Daubert standard. We offer evidence of the problem and propose a new standard that would capture the essence of Daubert but significantly simplify its application.