Thanks to CAAFLog here’s a link to a short article in the Florida Courier about Phillip Mills the errant DNA examiner at USACIL and some impacts of his shoddy, lazy, and possibly manipulative work. Some highlights.
In a 2001 Navy case, for instance, Mills didn’t examine a knife presented as evidence. Another lab technician was more thorough several years later, and found the DNA of someone who wasn’t the suspect.
An offender still on the loose and a person possibly falsely accused.
Courtesy of CrimProfBlog:
Jesse J. Norris (Beloit College) has posted Who Can Testify About Lab Results after Melendez-Diaz? The Challenge of Surrogate Testimony to the Confrontation Clause (American Journal of Criminal Law, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a certificate presenting forensic lab results was testimonial evidence, and that defendants thus have the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine the analyst. Despite this ruling, courts remain divided on the question of surrogate testimony: when can an expert witness, such as a lab supervisor or outside expert, testify in place of the analyst? How this question is answered has enormous consequences for the future of the Confrontation Clause and the criminal justice system more generally. Widespread surrogate testimony threatens to undermine confrontation rights and contribute to false convictions, yet banning it altogether could result in defendants going free whenever the forensic analyst is unavailable and the test cannot be repeated.
Military.com reports:
The top military commander in Afghanistan has suspended a commander and a helicopter crew during an investigation into possible civilian casualties in the eastern Afghan province of Kunar.
DOD Sexual Assaults report for FY 2010. Fascinating information.
21 March 2011 will see oral argument in Tolentino v. New York (linked to SCOTUSBlog).
Issue: Whether pre-existing identity-related governmental documents, such as motor vehicle records, obtained as the direct result of police action violative of the Fourth Amendment, are subject to the exclusionary rule?
SCOTUSBlog has an argument preview here.
A lurker put me on to this blog, because of an item:
Federal Government Compares Seminoles to Al Qaeda in Military Commissions Case.
United States v. Hartman.
On Appellant’s petition, we granted review of the following issue:
WHETHER APPELLANT’S CONVICTION UNDER ARTICLE 125, UCMJ, FOR CONSENSUAL SODOMY IN THE PRESENCE OF A THIRD PERSON VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.
Marine Corps Times reports:
Thirty-five percent of first lieutenants vying for promotion this year were instead sent packing by a board tasked with tightening junior-officer ranks.
. . .
Air Force Times reports a case of reach for the stars:
Allan Poulin Jr. dreamed of flying a fighter and landed a job interview with an F-16 reserve unit. The squadron leadership didn’t want him. The wing commander offered Poulin a job anyway.
Poulin struggled at Officer Training School. The school commander signed off on his dismissal. A one-star ordered him reinstated.
It’s over.
This years series of presentations was much better than previous years. The topics and speakers were much more relevant, while being sufficiently edgy at the same time. Gone are the days where a “prof” from TJAGSA would go through slides reporting the school’s view of “this years” military appellate case law. Such predictable “modules” could be stultifying. And removing rote school teaching from the agenda is not a bad thing when you consider the professional makeup of the likely audience. However, going too far the other way to discuss books about submarine recovery/searches risks irrelevance.
General Chiarelli was among the best of the speakers. He had quite a bit of interest to talk about. But the under-stated points he made were about a commanders relationship to her lawyer and vice-versa. His relevant points:
The court is gradually putting the handouts up on the website.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
