Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

JOBS for JAGs

May 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

May 8, 2009
JOBS for JAGS Seminar
Presented by the Pentagon and DC Chapters of the FBA, the Federal Career Service and Young Lawyers Divisions of the FBA, and the Judge Advocates Association
Location: Army and Navy Club, Washington, DC
This full-day event is designed for junior and senior military attorneys transitioning from active duty to civilian or government practice. The seminar will feature panels of top attorneys from the Department of Justice and other government agencies, as well as from private practice and industry, to share tips and insights on finding employment. Many of the panelists are retired or former Judge Advocates and will share their tips on selling your skills as a JAG to government employers, law firms, and corporations.
Registration: View Brochure Register online at www.jaa.org For a detailed agenda, visit http://www.jaa.org/jobsforjags.htm

Freebee

May 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Pentagon Chapter of the Federal Bar Association will be throwing an end of oral argument season bash — though, as it turns out, about a month before the final CAAF oral arguments. The festivities will be held at CAAF at 1500 on 27 May 2009. Beverages and light refreshments will be served. All members of the court’s bar are invited.

CAAFLog.

DADT

May 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here’s a NY Times opinion piece with various positions on the current don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

Federal Rules of Evidence

May 4, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Restyling The Federal Rules of Evidence (Part III).

Gray death sentence.

May 3, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is an item from the FayObserver.com

Why is Ronald Adrin Gray still alive?

Hearsay.

May 3, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is considering preserving the military commissions some form. Part of the motivation for that, it is said, is this: "Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies."

It is unfortunate that we have not yet drawn the right lessons from the Guantanamo-Military Commission experience. One of the notions held by the Bush administration people who set up the commissions was that judges, courts, lawmakers, etc., are naive in their treatment and distrust of hearsay evidence. Like first year law students (and many of their teachers blissfully unburdened by any on-the-ground experience in law enforcement or criminal justice), these "reformers" were bold and believed that any rational dummy knows that hearsay evidence is often worth quite a lot.

What our experience with the commissions should teach us is that hearsay evidence is often worth very little and that its use in adjudication presents serious problems. Any dummy who has just a bit of experience in investigation and litigation should know that. It is not easy to figure out how to sort hearsay wheat from hearsay chaff. But it is important to make the effort. Otherwise we will continue to have imprisonment for years on end on the word of the legendary Afghan goat herder resentful of his neighbor and eager for economic self-advancement.

Computer searches.

May 3, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Computer search warrant was badly drafted, and it lacked particularity. However, the good faith exception saved the search because the officer sought counsel from the USMJ and AUSA in executing it. United States v. Otero, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9001 (10th Cir. April 28, 2009).

Police who were actually investigating the possibility child porn was on defendant’s computer did not misrepresent what they were looking for when they said credit card fraud, but they really knew that defendant had used his credit card on a child porn website. Possibility of credit card fraud was enough. [HA!] People v. Prinzing, 2009 Ill. App. LEXIS 234 (April 21, 2009).

FourthAmendment blog.

Publicity in courts-martial

May 2, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

There has been a discussion about access to court dockets by the media, practitioners, educators, and the public to information about on-going courts-martial. For example here is a piece on CAAFLog. While I have been a supporter of transparency, I from time to time wish we could do as other common law countries do about pretrial publicity in criminal cases – which is generally not much.

We go through a lot of handwringing, black markers, and sealing of documents to protect the names of victims of sexual assault for example. Yet we pay scant regard for the privacy and rights of the individual accused. Rarely do we see the media flurry and retractions when the accused is found not guilty. Yet how does that accused put his life back in the box after an acquittal?

So it’s with interest I have noted two New Zealand court-martial cases – here and here.

Jail house “confessions”

May 2, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

In its decision Wednesday in Kansas v. Ventris (No. 07-1356), the Supreme Court ruled that the government may impeach a defendant’s testimony using statements obtained during an interrogation that violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, even though the prosecution would be barred from using such tainted evidence as part of its case in chief.

So starts the analysis of the Supreme Court decision in Kansas v. Ventris on SCOTUSBlog.

There is a different take on Ventris at Mark A. Godsey, Thoughts on Kansas v. Ventris, CrimProf Blog, 30 April 2009.

CAAF Rule changes.

May 1, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

This might be of more interest to appellate practitioners, but here is a Download CAAF Proposed Changes rule changes.