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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Contact Information