AP reports:
Eight years ago, a child protection investigator and a deputy sheriff removed a 9-year-old Oregon girl from her classroom and questioned her at length as to whether her father had sexually abused her. According to the girl, they wouldn’t take "no" for an answer, and she falsely incriminated her father.
Based on the aggressive and zealous efforts of military FAP’s and others this case is worth following.
Thanks to Howard Bashman at How Appealing, here is a link to United States v. Steen, a Fifth Circuit case involving a prosecution under 18 U. S. Code § 2251(a).
Alan Ray Steen appeals his jury conviction for one count of production of child pornography for video he surreptitiously recorded in a tanning salon, while the subject of the video was unaware of the filming…. As we will explain, Steen did not violate the statute he was charged with offending. We therefore REVERSE Steen’s conviction.
Having had a couple of these types of cases I found this interesting.
It looks like some Blazier trailers are starting to come out:
United States v. Dollar:
We consider whether the preadmission of two drug testing reports violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In light of United States v. Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (Blazier II), we find error under the Confrontation Clause and remand to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) for consideration of whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Military.com reports:
The Air Force has started drug testing airmen for synthetic forms of marijuana this week, making it the first service to announce such screening.
What actually they will be testing for is clear. But it’s not spice, which is actually salvia divornium; that can’t be tested for currently. Other drugs incorrectly called “spice” can be. These misnamed new drugs are manufactured and can be tested for; essentially you have a form of marijuana. I’m wondering if the lack of specificity and the confusing over what is spice or isn’t may be way to litigate these cases.
2 March 2011, Bullcoming v. New Mexico will be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court.
KDHNews.com reports:s
Maj. Nidal Hasan’s defense team met with Col. Morgan Lamb, the special court-martial convening authority in his case today.
The meeting provided the defense team, led by retired Col. John Galligan, an opportunity to present any matters for Lamb’s consideration before he takes action as a convening authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Courtesy of LawProfsBlog.
The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: The Century of Fourth Amendment ‘Search and Seizure’ Doctrine
Thomas Y. Davies
University of Tennessee College of Law
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 933-1041, 2010
University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. #137
Here is one of those occasional outside the mjWire cases of interest.
The police responded to a 911 call about a “break-in” and a shooting. They found the defendant outside the house, confused and under the likely influence of drugs. The did a “protective sweep” on exigency and found drug stuff. They proceeded to search. The USMJ recommended suppression for lack of a warrant, and the USDJ agrees. The proper recourse was to get a search warrant and not rely on a alleged consent from a man they admit was hallucinating. Motion to suppress granted for lack of a warrant. United States v. Einerson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15633 (D. Neb. February 16, 2011).
Thanks to fourthamendmentblog.
Courtesy of LawProfsBlog:
Yolanda Vazquez (University of Pennsylvania Law School) has posted Advising Noncitizen Defendants on the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions: The Ethical Answer for the Criminal Defense Lawyer, the Court, and the Sixth Amendment (Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Vol. 20, p. 31, 2010) on SSRN.
This Article discusses the tension between the Sixth Amendment analysis by courts on the issue of immigration consequences of criminal convictions and the moral and ethical duties that an attorney owes his noncitizen client. Under the majority of jurisdictions, federal circuit and state courts hold that there is no duty to advise on this issue because they are deemed to be “collateral”. However, a growing number of these jurisdictions have begun to find a Sixth Amendment violation for failure to advise. These jurisdictions have created a Sixth Amendment duty only when: 1) the attorney “knew or should have known” the client was a non-citizen; or, 2) the attorney gave misadvice. However, these holdings create perverse incentives for attorneys to implement a Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy by allowing an attorney to remain silent and fail to investigate immigration status to prevent a Sixth Amendment violation on information that a noncitizen may deem more important than the criminal sentence as well as creating lines in the responsibilities an attorney owes his client based upon stereotypical perceptions of citizenship.
United States v. Lewis.
WHETHER APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COUNSEL ASKED A DEFENSE EXPERT WHETHER HE FOUND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, AND ARGUED TO THE MEMBERS THAT THE DEFENSE EXPERT FAILED TO FIND EVIDENCE SUGGESTING ANYONE OTHER THAN APPELLANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSES.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
