Slightly off message, but in light of the attention given to collateral consequences of a court-martial conviction and my earlier comment about impact on clearances, perhaps there is no impact.
Del Quinten Wilber, Security-Clearance Checks Eyed, Washington Post, 9 April 2009.
The CAAF daily journal for today is not updated, but knowing where he sits, we take CAAFLog’s observation that the AF TJAG has certified the following issues as accurate.
I. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in denying the United States’ request that the court order an affidavit from Appellee’s original military defense counsel.
II. Whether an "impression" left by civilian defense counsel that Appellee may not have to register as a sex offender amounted to an affirmative misrepresentation and led to Appellee receiving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Not the lawyers — the jurors.
I've posted several articles, and the web is rife with articles, posts, and case decisions about how jurors are using technology in the jury room: twittering, contacting the media, and now this interesting piece by Prof Colin Miller. An Analog Rule in a Digital World?: Court of Appeals of Indiana Precludes Jury Impeachment Based Upon Text Message Found in Defendant's Cell Phone, 7 April 2009.
The Supreme Court issued a decision today in Corley v. United States.
The SCOTUSWiki documentation.
The decision in Corley.
We made several postings of article assessing the Roberts Supreme Court and the future of the exclusionary rule. Here is another, Susan A. Bandes, The Roberts Court and the Future of the Exclusionary Rule, American Constitution Society, April 2009.
Vol 199 MIL. L. REV., Spring 2009, is now on line complete with typos.
| National Scurity (sic) Veiled in Secrecy: An Analysis of the State Secrets Privilege in National Security Agency Wiretapping Litigation |
|
| From Law Member to Militry (sic) Judge: The Continuing Evolution of an Independent Trial Judiciary in the Twenty-First Century |
The Fourteenth Hugh J. Clausen Lecture in Leadership
1 April 2009:
No. 09-5001/MC. United States, Appellant v. Matthew T. BURK, Appellee. CCA 200800146. On March 4, 2009, the United States filed a motion for enlargement of time in which to file a certificate of review in the above-captioned case. The Court granted that motion to March 30, 2009 (Daily Journal, March 10, 2009). On March 31, 2009, the United States filed a notice of intent not to certify this case to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In view of this notice, it is, ordered that the above captioned case is hereby removed from the Court’s docket.
Here is the CAAFLog discussion of Burk.
Here’s a short article on two cases pending at the Supreme Court, Montejo v. Louisiana and Kansas v. Ventris.
Bidish J. Sarma, Robert J. Smith, & G. Ben Cohen, Interrogations and the Guiding Hand of Counsel: Montejo, Ventris, and the Sixth Amendment's Continued Vitality, Northwestern L. Rev. Colloquy, 3 April 2009.
We previously commented on an issue of voodoo science, and more on voodoo science, and the National Research Counsel report on the future of forensics. The promoters of this piece of voodoo — a voice stress analyser — convinced law enforcement to fund and buy their expensive machine and methods for using voice stresses to tell if a suspect was lying. A number of reputable people published or sought to publish peer reviewed critiques. Rather than rebut with more peer reviewed research the owners of the company sued. That's right, rather than conduct the discussion in the research laboratory and through peer reviewed articles and research, they sought to close down critics through lawsuits. Also, they persuaded the supposedly neutral peer reviewed journal, the International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, to withdraw the critical commentary. The critique is still available due to the internet — an alert reader captured the article before it was removed from the journal's website. The company had received government funding.
Well here is the next of likely several more shoes to fall on this supposed reliable technology. It continues to be put through its own stress tests.
James D. Harnsberger, Harry Hollien, Camilo A. Martin, and Kevin A. Hollien (in press) Stress and Deception in Speech: Evaluating Layered Voice Analysis, Journal of Forensic Sciences.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
