I’ve posted before on issues about potential bias and unreliability with forensic and other expert testimony: here and here. In particular, we’ve referenced the National Academy of Sciences study.
Well it’s not just in the United States. Here is a piece from the U.K.
Frances Gibb, Why the Law Commission is worried about expert evidence, 7 April 2009.
I mentioned an article yesterday about the court-martial of a New Zealand army officer. I wondered if you’d noticed the same thing.
What’s the officers name?
The question relates to how other countries deal with trial by media.
Justice Souter’s nomination, although apparently predictable, is in the news. Here is an interesting perspective on how his retirement and Senator Specter’s “defection” may impact the nominee to replace Justice Souter and all of the administrations future judicial nominations.
Prof. Michael C. Dorf, How Specter’s Defection Could Make it Harder to Confirm Pres. Obama’s Judicial Nominations, Dorf on Law, 28 April 2009.
Read this article about a New Zealand army prosecution.
What’s different about it?
In United States v. Gladue, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009), has underscored the importance of understanding the terms of a PTA and the effect on appellate was well as trial issues.
In Gladue the accused, as is common, agreed to waive any waivable motions. The MJ discussed with appellant a number of motions covered by that term, but not those of multiplicity. Appellant tried to raise multiplicity on appeal.
Even though not mentioned on the record, CAAF holds that the language applies to any waivable motion and is not limted to those discussed on the record at trial.
The LA Times on line is reporting that the NMCCA, sitting en banc, has:
The Marine Corps appealed the panel’s ruling to the full nine-member court. But the court Tuesday night rejected the appeal without command.
The Marine Corps can continue its appeals or attempt to reinstate charges against Chessani by launching a new investigation under the direction of a new convening authority, a lengthy and complex process.
Here is a piece on Kevin from the 28 April 2009, Washington Post.
Here is an interesting piece by Pamla M. Sterner, The Stolen Valor Act 2005.
120 STAT. 3266 PUBLIC LAW 109–437—DEC. 20, 2006.
Vietnam Veteran Charged With Violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
The Kansas Court of Appeals continues the tradition of citation to anecdotal legal authority. See The cult of Sir Cloudesly Shovell, CAAFLog, 21 April 2009.
It appears that the Kansas Court of Appeals cited the little watched short running show “Branded” as a basis to overturn a trial judges requirement that a convicted child abuser put notices on his lawn of his conviction.
ABA News, 24 April 2009.
We are all familiar with Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987), in which a per se bar against hypnotically refreshed testimony of an accused was held unconstitutional. Prof. Colin Miller reports that the state of Illnois finds that a per se bar can be applied to witnesses other than the accused.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
