Here is a link to an event at Washington College of Law, sponsored by NIMJ.
Public Trials? Lifting the Veil on Military Courts-Martial.
Date:
04/14/09
Here, courtesy of SCOTUSBlog are several pending petitions of interest.
Docket: 08-833
Title: Oliver v. Quarterman
Issue: Does juror consultation of the Bible during sentencing deliberations deprive a defendant of Sixth Amendment rights and what standard of proof should apply in evaluating the possible prejudice to the defendant?
Docket: 08-769
Title: United States v. Stevens
Issue: Is 18 U.S.C. 48, on depictions of animal cruelty, facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
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.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
