Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
The Supreme Court issued a decision today in Corley v. United States.
The SCOTUSWiki documentation.
The decision in Corley.
Have Briefcase (and
Internet), Will TravelFor a Free Consultation
Future of the exclusionary rule
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.
Military Law Review
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
Burk
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.
Fifth and Sixth Counsel Right
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.
Voodoo science – continued
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.
Readings
Norman C. Bay, Old Blood, Bad Blood, and Youngblood: Due Process, Lost Evidence, and The Limits of Bad Faith, 86:2 Washington Univ. L. Rev. (2008).
Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. & Major Linell A. Letendre, Military Lawyering and Professional Independence in the War on Terror: A Response to David Luban, 61:2 Stanford L. Rev. 417 (2008).
First amendment and leaking information
Here is the intro from Kent Scheidegger of CrimeandConsequences blog.
To refute the notion that freedom of speech or the press is absolute, a
common device is to cite a hypothetical of spoken or written words that
New from CAAF — Article 32 waiver’s and rehearings.
CAAF issued an opinion today in United States v. Von Bergen,
The granted issue was:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE HELD APPELLANT’S WAIVER OF HIS ARTICLE 32 RIGHTS FOR HIS 20 SEPTEMBER 2001 COURT-MARTIAL APPLIED TO HIS 23 OCTOBER 2006 REHEARING.
Clients stories
Here's a good reminder from Jon Katz and his blog.
After practicing criminal defense for many years, a lawyer can get
jaded by some of the more cockamamie-sounding urgings from clients,