A Naval Academy midshipman is scheduled to be court-martialed Tuesday at the Navy Yard in Washington on theft and related charges, the school announced Friday. Midshipman 1st Class Julia Kaelberer, of Rialto, Calif., has accepted a plea agreement and will face charges of theft, unlawful entry, making false official statements and conduct unbecoming an officer, according to Judy Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Naval Academy. The academy did not release further details about the case.

Baltimore Sun, 25 April 2009.

I found this unusual.  You don’t normally here of this type of crime coming out of any of the service academies.

The US Marine acquitted on appeal in a high-profile rape case has left the Philippines, but he could face court martial in the US, officials said.

"Following the decision of the Philippine Court of Appeals, Daniel Smith departed the Philippines under the authority of United States military officials," the US embassy said in a statement.

Calling the rape case "long and difficult," the US embassy said Smith was detained for more than three years in its premises in compliance with the Visiting Forces Agreement, which governs the conduct of US troops in the Philippines.

At 08.20, 24 April 2009, CAPT Kevin J. Barry, USCG (Ret.) became an honor graduate of life. 

His death is a loss not just to his family and friends but to the military justice community as a whole.  Kevin worked hard and long as an advocate for his clients, for the system, and an advocate for changes in military justice.  He spoke with passion, with clarity, and with knowledge.  His views were not always accepted, but they are universally respected as is he as a person.  Kevin practiced the profession of law, not the business.

For many of us he was a mentor, an inspiration, and a good friend in our professional lives.  For some of us his inspiration and courage went well beyond that into our personal lives.  Watching and listening to him in his struggles against cancer gave others hope and the will to fight their own struggles.

Here is the 21 April 2009 Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. Gant.  Basically it limits the scope of a warrantless car search.  In the course of its decision the court did not overrule New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), but concluded Belton was misunderstood and misapplied.

This was a 5 – 4 Decision. 

Here is a “news release” by the FLETC legal staff.  This is what all U. S. law enforcement personnel currently attending FLETC or who get their alerts is being told about the impact of Arizona v. Gant.  All CID/OSI/NCIS/CGIS agents claim to have attended FLETC.  So, they are on notice and the “notice” gives you some ideas on investigative and cross-examination questions of the police if your search involves a warrantless search of an auto.

D.C. Circuit remands case for district court to determine which company records, including from an internal investigation, were material to the defendant’s defense “and to protect against the public disclosure of material documents in a manner consistent with Thompson’s right to a fair trial,” in United States v. Thompson, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. April 17, 2009) (No. 08-5203).

This is courtesy of Federal Evidence Review blog and is a useful case about discovery.  For military cases I suspect this could be an issue most often in computer crimes cases where AOL, Yahoo, etc., cooperate with the police but want to protect their internal “confidential” records and procedures.  Well they can do that, but an accused’s constitutional rights will or should override.  As the case suggests a court protective order can serve, just as it does in Mil. R. Evid. 412 issues.

One of the most potentially influential Supreme Court decisions for trial practitioners is still pending a decision – Melendez-Diaz.  This is the issue of forensic reports as testimonial under Crawford.  The betting appears to be that it will be a mind-blower written by Justice Scalia.

On 6 April 2009, Professor Freidman, an amicus in the case, noted.

The Supreme Court completed its latest sitting today without deciding Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. The long wait — the case was argued November 10 — suggests that something is brewing. Perhaps the Court is still debating the merits of the particular question presented, whether a forensic lab certificate reporting the presence of cocaine is testimonial. But I still think that should be an easy yes. Perhaps they are debating broader questions concerning the meaning of "testimonial." And perhaps they are debating yet more general questions of constitutional interpretation. April 21 is now the first date on which, barring something unusual, perhaps we will find out.

I take some back, almost.

Again I was looking at the NKO Criminal Law Division’s practice tips and I came across this one dealing with the ““Blackout” defense to alcohol facilitated sexual assault.”  No, it’s not.  This title implies that the accused has deliberately gotten the complaining witness drunk.  This is not the case in 99% of the cases and don’t let the prosecutor characterize it this way. There are several items or thoughts generated from this pointer helpful to the defense.  This pointer could be useful to the defense in justifying experts.  But let’s comment on the article from a defense perspective – I’ll do this stream-of-consciousness.  No secrets here, it’s in plenty of records of trial.

1.  The article tells the prosecution to hold the defense feet to the fire on qualified experts.  Ha!  Doesn’t the prosecution usually deny the expert and then offer one under the “adequate substitute” theory?  I would be very interested in the number of times an expert request is made and not approved.  Which leads to a next point about this.   Now, remember this.  When the prosecution denies the request and proffers a substitute, even if it turns out the substitute isn’t really qualified, what has the prosecution done?  Conceded necessity.  Once that happens it’s all over, the only issue is who and is that person available according to the timetable.   Ooops, just gave a hint to the prosecution, but that’s OK.

Contact Information