Prof. Colin Miller has this very useful post on the character of a "victim" when a defense of self-defense is raised.
Lawyer seeks to prevent opponent from wearing worn shoes: The economy may be in the dumps, but lawyers shouldn’t skimp on their pumps, according to this story in the Palm Beach Post. (H/T The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog). Florida defense lawyer Michael Robb found himself the target of a motion asking the court to prevent him from wearing shoes with holes in the soles, which were allegedly part of his trial strategy. Robb’s retort? "I’ve been practicing law for 21 years, and Mr. Bone thinks he’s finally cracked the key to my success? Gotta be the shoes. Like Michael Jordan.
Law.com/Legalblogwatch.
United States v. Wiechmann, __ M.J. ___, No. 09-0082/MC (C.A.A.F. July 6, 2009) has been decided. There was error, but found to be constitutionally harmless.
After a captain with very little defense experience was detailed to represent a retirement-eligible lieutenant colonel, the Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps detailed a highly respected Marine Reservist LtCol as a defense counsel in the case. From this point on the convening authority and the first military judge on the case refused to recognize or deal with LtCol Shelburne as a detailed counsel. A second judge did accept the detailing. The issue was money, who pays for the LtCol.
There’s at least one federal judge who likes to enforce discovery where the prosecution has a – in my words – self executing duty to produce.
Federal Judge Questions Prosecution Conduct in Ye Gon Case.
“This is the second time in less than three months in a high profile case where the Department of Justice has come before this court and asked it to dismiss an indictment after allegations that Brady-Giglio information was not timely produced to the defense,” Sullivan said today.
The officers had PC for a vehicle search based on their surveillance, so Gant has no application. United States v. Almaraz, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54138 (S.D. N.Y. June 26, 2009).*
The stop in this case was not unreasonably extended. The officer’s questioning during the writing of the ticket led to answers that were more hesitant and gave reasonable suspicion. United States v. Suitt, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13769 (8th Cir. June 25, 2009).*
Drug ‘em if you’ve got ‘em.
I’ve argued often that the military drug policy is broken: Alcohol the number one drug of abuse — a killer, a cause of injury, and a cause of physical damage and loss of military property — goes relatively free from regulation and consequence, military pharmacies distribute millions of prescription drugs and put the people back to work, and the one time user of marijuana goes to jail. Now this.
Here is this month’s technology/software item to go in your office-in-a-briefcase.
Gwabbit.
gwabbit is an Add-in for Microsoft Outlook and the BlackBerry that finds, gwabs and adds contacts from your emails to your Outlook address book with a single mouse click!
Here is information concerning President Obama’s recent comments on DADT.
Remarks by President Obama at the LGBT Pride Month White House Reception, June 29, 2009.
Here is Volokh Conspiracy’s multiple choice test on the comments.
I’ve commented earlier that I do not see Melendez-Diaz altering the drug urinalysis case in terms of laboratory evidence. Here is some additional thought which I think supports my conclusion.
Q2: Peer review, forensic experts.
One question that came up during oral argument, and remains after the ruling, is the application of the ruling to peer review witnesses. It is common for a supervisor or peer to review a forensic examination, as part of a quality control process. The reviewer often does not conduct the specific analysis or testing.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
