Yeager v. United States will be argued Monday at the Supreme Court.
an issue necessary to its judgment can preclude relitigation of that
There's an interesting case going on in (southern California of course) where the defense is seeking to offer.
Defense attorneys are for the first time submitting a controversial neurological lie-detection test as evidence in U.S. court.digg_url ="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/noliemri.html";
In an upcoming juvenile-sex-abuse case in San Diego, the defense is
United States v. Pitcher, 05-3182r, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103 (2d Cir. March 11, 2009). In this case appellant claimed IAC. He claimed on direct appeal that he wouldn't have plead not guilty, but for the overly rosy picture of his chances of success painted by his trial defense counsel. He lost. So he took a habeas petition and succeeded in having the district court vacate the findings and sentence based on IAC. Pitcher v. United States, 371 F. Supp. 2d 246
(E.D.N.Y. 2005).
I may have read too much into the case, but there is an underlying theme that defense counsel may have a duty to strong arm an 'obviously guilty' client into a pretrial agreement. There were issues raised in the collateral attack about the procedures under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255, which aren't relevant for our story. The points for trial defense counsel are the client who lies, giving a proper assessment of the client's chances based on the facts available, and it's improper to arm-twist a client into accepting a pretrial agreement.
Entitled as a "shameless plug" Mike Navarre is moderating a 1.5 hr CLE tomorrow. Here, shamelessly, is the whole item lifted.
tomorrow on Criminal Accountability for Civilians in the Battle Space.
To qoute CAAFLog:
AFCCA has put up a number of cases on their website, here are just a few.
United States v. Taylor, ACM 37065 (March 12, 2009). A case worth reading where the MJ allowed speculative testimony about date rape drug use. Affirmed.
United States v. Russell, ACM 37210 (March 12, 2009). Part way through a contested members case the prosecution asked for and got, over defense objection, a 40 day delay to get a witness whose absence from trial was caused by the government. I'd love to see the defense try that one.
Federal Evidence Review has put up a very good list of Supreme Court cases that impact evidence issues in a case. The list "includes constitutional, statutory, and Federal Rules of Evidence – based evidence-related cases." The list is by its nature discretionary and subject to change, but a useful reminder. Who knows, the Supreme Court may eventually issue an opinion in Melendez-Diaz.
No. 09-0185/AR. U.S. v. Makisha I. MORTON. CCA 20060458. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER, AFTER FINDING THE EVIDENCE FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILTY TO THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE AND ITS SPECIFICATION (FORGERY), THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ON A THEORY NOT PRESENTED TO THE TRIER OF FACT.
The court might consider the resolution in United States v. Thompson, 67 M.J. 106 (C.A.A.F. 2009).
Every so often the defense wants a co-accused to testify because they have something beneficial to say and they have already said it at the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. As we know, the prosecution almost never willingly immunizes the witness, and judges don't always force the issue. (Odd how that happens to the defense, but never the prosecution.)
Anyway, check out, Federal Evidence Review's, item, Former grand jury testimony of cooperating witness should have been presented to the jury under FRE 804(b)(1); Ninth Circuit adopts broad application of “similar motive” requirement, in United States v. McFall, _ F.3d _ (9th Cir. March 9, 2009) (No. 07-10034).
This is a case where the alleged co-accused's testified to Brady material (my construction of this) at the grand jury hearings in the case. Of course the prosecution objected to having the grand jury testimony of the witnesses played at the accused's trial. The witnesses had invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege at trial. The government wasn't interested in having the witnesses evidence before the jury so they had not called the witnesses themselves, even though the witnesses had agreed to cooperate with the prosecution.
Here is another resource via the Office of Defender Services, Legal, Policy & Training Division, Administrative Office of the Courts, Washington, DC.
Immigration consequences of conviction.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
