CAAF’s Journal for 28 February:
No. 11-5003/NA. U.S. v. Thomas J. HAYES. CCA 201000366. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:
WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT’S UNSWORN STATEMENT DURING PRESENTENCING RAISED THE “POSSIBLE DEFENSE” OF DURESS.
I’ve posted the link to Camreta argument today.
Another Scalia’ism
It takes two to tango[.] At p. 6.
Here courtesy of fourthamendment.com is a case which demonstrates how the police benefit from the benefit of doubt.
Trial court’s ruling denying motion to suppress was erroneously denied. While the trial court has the credibility call and great deference in making findings of fact at a suppression hearing, the surveillance video of the area of defendant’s detention at the suppression hearing clearly contradicted the officer’s testimony about where and how things happened, and it showed that the motion to suppress should have been granted. State v. Thompson, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 241 (La. App. 2d Cir. February 23, 2011). (Emphasis added.)
The judge in this case appears to have believed the police officer, despite the video of the encounter which contradicts the police testimony.
Thanks to a lurker:
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this final order to temporarily place five synthetic cannabinoids into the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions. The substances are 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018), 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073), 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200), 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1 R, 3 S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497), and 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1 R, 3 S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol; CP-47,497 C8 homologue). This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of these synthetic cannabinoids into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As a result of this order, the full effect of the CSA and its implementing regulations including criminal, civil and administrative penalties, sanctions and regulatory controls of Schedule I substances will be imposed on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, and exportation of these synthetic cannabinoids.
Here is a piece in the fayobserver.com about United States v. Gray, a long ongoing DP case.
CAAF has decided United States v. Watson.
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT APPELLANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE WAS VOIDABLE AND PROPERLY REVOKED AND DID NOT REMIT THE ADJUDGED DISMISSAL.
For the reasons set forth below we conclude that Appellant received a valid discharge, and reverse the decision of the court below.
The Supreme Court will hear argument tomorrow in a case important to military practitioners. What’s the law when NCIS, OSI, CGIS, CID, drags your child out of the courtroom and coerces them into admitting that a parent (usually the father) has abuse them?
SCOTUSBlog has this: Argument preview: Do Fourth Amendment warrant requirements attach to the in-school interview of a child whom authorities suspect may be the victim of sexual abuse at home?
On March 1, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument in the consolidated cases of Camreta v. Greene (No. 09-1454) and Alford v. Greene (No. 09-1478).
The UCLA Law Review has an excellent series of articles about forensic “science.”
The primary article:
The methods, techniques, and reliability of the forensic sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines in particular, have faced significant scrutiny in recent years. Critics have attacked the scientific basis for the assumptions and claims made by forensic scientists both in and out of the courtroom. Defenders have emphasized courts’ longstanding acceptance of forensic science evidence, the relative dearth of known errors, and practitioners’ skill and experience. This Article reflects an effort made by a diverse group of participants in these debates, including law professors, academics from several disciplines, and practicing forensic scientists, to find and explore common ground. To what extent do the forensic sciences need to change in order to place themselves on an appropriately secure foundation in the twenty- first century? We all firmly agree that the traditional forensic sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines, such as fingerprint, firearm, toolmark, and handwriting identification evidence in particular, do not currently possess—and absolutely must develop—a well-established scientific foundation. This can only be accomplished through the development of a research culture that permeates the entire field of forensic science. A research culture, we argue, must be grounded in the values of empiricism, transparency, and a commitment to an ongoing critical perspective. The forensic science disciplines need to substantially increase their commitment to evidence from empirical research as the basis for their conclusions. Sound research, rather than experience, training, and longstanding use, must become the central method by which assertions are justified. In this Article, we describe the underdeveloped research culture in the non-DNA forensic sciences, offer suggestions for how it might be improved, and explain why it matters.
Karen Franklin reviews an excellent book on the important subject of sex offender treatments that may work.
An interesting comment related to:
Denial: Not necessarily a bad thing
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
