Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Voice authentication.

March 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Prof. Colin Miller has posted on how to and who may authenticate a persons voice, Follow My Voice: Seventh Circuit Finds That Voice Authentication Doesn't Need To Be Done By An Expert.

Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5), which states that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence of:

Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.

New Army Lawyer

March 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The February Army Lawyer is on-line. There are four articles of interest to military practitioner's.

2008 New Developments in Self-Incrimination
New Developments in Sixth Amendment Confrontation and Jurisdiction
Building a Better Mousetrap or Just a More Convoluted One?:A Look at Three Major Developments in Substantive Criminal Law
“Planning is Everything” Purpose Driven Trial Preparation

Trial Counsel doing the right thing.

March 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

No Ethics Charges Filed Against Prosecutor Who Tried to Help Defense, ABA Journal blog.

More work for lawyers – repeat.

March 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

March 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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?

March 5, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

[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.

March 2, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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

March 2, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

March 1, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

February 28, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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?