Professor Tillers has this interesting post on his blog.
In Brown v. Perlman, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37546 at n. 41 (May 8, 2008), Judge Magistrate Peck said:
A prosecutor’s failure to conduct forensic tests does not violate a federal constitutional right. See, e.g., Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58-59 (1988).
I’ve already commented on breath tests.
Here is a new case and continuing discussion which potentially excludes evidence of the Intoxilyzer 5000, a device found to be used frequently at military bases. The issue is actually one of discovery.
I have written several previous posts about the problems associated with the Intoxilyzer brand of evidential breath alcohol-testing devices.
Having represented numerous recruiters I’m aware that productivity is everything, and that creative “incentives” are often developed. But . . .
Police have arrested a Marine Corps recruiter on charges of felony pimping and kidnapping and are looking into whether he used sex with a 14-year-old girl to entice potential recruits.
Police say Recruiter Pimped Girl, 14, Military.com, from AP.
United States v. Contreras, ACM 37233 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 28 May 2009).
Contreras is charged with violating Article 130, UCMJ, as well as some other serious charges. Regrettably this is one of a never ending series of sex cases stemming from alcohol. Here is the issue on the 130.
AFCCA rejects application of United States v. Conliffe to the facts here and finds that committing indecent acts with another is not a purely military offense even though charged under Article 134, UCMJ. This makes sense. The militariness of the action or conduct should be the factor, not what UCMJ article was used for the charge. Using the court’s rationale, house-breaking for the purpose of being disrespectful to a non-commissioned officer would likely not be an offense in Minnesota (although we could be creative I suppose under the MNANG version of the UCMJ), therefore, not punishable under Article 130.
The blog Opinio Juris is one of many frustrated with the type and quality of comments on blogs. So, here’s what they are doing about it.
by Roger Alford
Readers will note that today Opinio Juris has incorporated a new comment feature that allows our readers to help regulate the quality of comments. The comment rating feature allows readers to vote “Yay” or “Nay” to any comment that is posted. After a certain number of negative votes are cast to a comment (we are still testing the precise number), the comment will be hidden from view. The comment will not be deleted, only hidden. Anyone who wishes to read the comment can still do so, but it will require an affirmative step of clicking on the comment to maximize the text. This is a middle path between our previous approach of completely unfiltered comments, and the other extreme of censoring inappropriate material.
A Navy chaplain who served aboard the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson was found guilty Monday of raping a young enlisted woman.
The woman Dillman raped said that he befriended her after she came to him seeking help with problems. She said he attacked her in his apartment one afternoon after they had worked out together.
Virginian-Pilot, 1 June 2009.
It’s not hard to believe recruiters might go to any lengths to complete mission, having represented a lot of recruiters and also those who claim they were improperly recruited. But does this not take the cake? Not only the recruiter, but MEPS, and he got through boot-camp.
Rick Rogers, Case stirs military recruiting questions: Autistic man in brig, facing court-martial, San Diego Union-Tribune, 1 June 2009.
The Marine Corps is investigating how an autistic man now facing court-martial managed to join the service and graduate from boot camp in San Diego.
A recent Ninth Circuit case highlights the importance of disclosing impeachment evidence and the consequences of failing to do so. The prosecutor requested a criminal history check on a key government witness. The prosecutor indicated he was unaware of the criminal history which was not disclosed to the defense. The defendant was convicted and subsequently the criminal history evidence came to light.
Getting this type of discovery is a frequent problem in military cases. You will notice that Price does not cite to Henthorn. It is unlikely you will find a reference in military cases to Henthorn as a legal standard in the military for background checks on prosecution witnesses. Military discovery is broader than in the civilian community, and you should take the position that Henthorn is more restrictive than contemplated in military practice. An additional argument is that such background checks do not require a discovery request; the duty on the prosecutor is a self-executing one that must be personally done in all cases.
"the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police."
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
Kenneth Anderson, Professor of Law, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University.
NMCCA today issued an important published opinion setting aside a finding of guilty to distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). United States v. Craig, __ M.J. ___, No. NMCCA 200800716 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. May 28, 2009).
AFCCA today issued a fascinating published opinion, which I’ve posted here. United States v. Nerad, __ M.J. ___, No. ACM 36994 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 29, 2009). Senior Judge Francis wrote for a unanimous panel.
Senior Airman (SrA) Nerad was carrying on an adulterous affair with a 17-year-old. But for the fact that he was married, it would have been legal under both military and the relevant civilian law for SrA Nerad to have sex with her. His 17-year-old lover e-mailed to SrA Nerad nude and partially nude pictures of herself. He also took nude pictures of her, including some while they were engaged in sex acts.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
