Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
No Ethics Charges Filed Against Prosecutor Who Tried to Help Defense, ABA Journal blog.
Have Briefcase (and
Internet), Will TravelFor a Free Consultation
More work for lawyers – repeat.
Just when you were starting to worry that there wouldn't be work —
along comes DoD with a new policy about officer and senior enlisted
civilian misconduct. The policy requires that officers and senior
Military searches in CONUS.
Here is John
C. Yoo's October 23, 2001 memo on the use of U.S. troops to conduct
military warrantless raids inside the U.S. here.
The value of oral argument?
[I quote] If you’re a briefwriter who, for
whatever reason, rarely gets the opportunity to present oral argument,
take heart in this quotation by a Fifth Circuit legend:
Invading the province of the jury.
Prof. Colin Miller has published an article about Fed. (Mil.) R. Evid. 606. Prof. Miller argues that, "Rule 606(b) to preclude
allegations of juror bias violate criminal defendants' right to present
a defense."
The inside baseball drug
For those for who baseball is a drug, here is a good piece from Federal Evidence Review. Not only is this a baseball story, but it also has some teaching points about the law of evidence in drug prosecution cases.
On Eve Of The Barry Bonds Perjury Trial, Government Appeals Evidence Ruling, FER, 2 March 2009.
Trial court concludes key evidence is inadmissible as unauthenticated or as hearsay, in United States v. Bonds, _ F.Supp.2d _ (NDCA Feb. 19, 2009) (No. CR 07-00732 SI).
Forensically speaking.
Psychology & Crime News has an interesting post about forensic linguistics in crime detection. Using forensic linguistics in the criminal justice system, P&CN, 28 February 2009.
John Olsson of the Forensic Linguistics Institute is one of the UK’s most experienced forensic linguists, with over
300 criminal cases in his portfolio. He kindly agreed to answer a few
Collateral consequences.
United States v. Hayes, __ U.S. ___ , No. 07–608, decided 24 February 2009. The Supreme Court has resolved a issue relating to qualifying convictions for firearm possession prohibitions post-conviction.
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §921 et seq., has long prohibited possession of a firearm by any person convicted of a felony. In 1996, Congress extended the prohibition to include persons convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” §922(g)(9). The definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” contained in §921(a)(33)(A), is at issue in this case. Does that term cover a misdemeanor battery whenever the battered victim was in fact the offender’s spouse (or other relation specified in §921(a)(33)(A))? Or, to trigger the possession ban, must the predicate misdemeanor identify as an element of the crime a domestic relationship between aggressor and victim?
I am in the middle of final preparations for trial this week on a domestic assault SPCM, so I was particularly drawn to this new opinion. The client is charged with assaulting "Mrs. X." But what if he'd been charged with assaulting "X." Even though the surnames are the same? What if the spouse in my case retained her unmarried name so client X was accused of assaulting Y?
Collateral consequences – immigration issues.
The Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in United States v. Denedo. There has been plenty of discussion on this case. See CAAFLog. The underlying issue for trial defense counsel relates to claims of IAC in regard to immigration status advice upon conviction. The issue at the Supreme Court is an important one regarding CAAF's authority and jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis.
In 2008, there were roughly 37,000 non-U.S. citizens currently serving in the military, according to U.S. Congress statistics. See Defense Link, 14 April 2008. In 2008, Secretary of Defense "Gates noted that nearly 43,000 men and women in uniform have become U.S. citizens since Sept. 11, 2001." See Defense Link, 23 October 2008. Here is a potential resource for the future.
The Criminal Lawyer’s Guide to Immigration Law: Questions and Answers Second Edition, By Robert James McWhirter
Book learning in ethics for counsel.
| NDAA National Prosecution Standards – 2nd Edition | |
|
Download Publication This |
|
It is improper for a trial counsel to interject herself into the proceedings by expressing a "personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence." United States v. Horn, 9 M.J. 429, 430 (C.M.A. 1980) (quoting ABA Standards, The Prosecution Function, § 5.8(b) (1971)).
United States v. Fletcher, 62 M.J. 175, 179 (C.A.A.F. 2005).
There are also standards for the defense function.
The full ABA Criminal Justice Standards are available on-line.
Do No Wrong: Ethics for Prosecutors and Defenders
By Peter A. Joy and Kevin C. McMunigal
This book is designed to help provide guidance for resolving ethical issues such as:
-How far may the prosecution or defense go in using religion in closing argument?
-Does the defense lawyer or the client decide whether to raise an insanity defense or to present mitigation evidence?
-Is the defendant entitled to Brady material prior to entering a plea bargain?
-When may the defense introduce evidence of an alternate perpetrator or
SODDI (the "some other dude did it") defense? (Jan. 2009, 205 pages).