Prof. Colin Miller, The Sense Of The Past: Third Circuit Corrects Worst Present Sense Impression Ruling I Have Ever Seen, 23 February 2009.
United States v Green, 2009 WL 385423 (3rd Cir. 2009).
over Green's vigorous objection, the Government was permitted to
Expert Can Testify About “Role-Playing In … Sexually Explicit Conversations On The Internet”, Federal Evidence Review, 25 September 2008.
For those of us who have done internet solicitation cases, the concept of role-playing and lying amongst participants is a known serious issue. These cases, as have mine, usually come up because the client shows up to meet the too young for prime time player. Low and behold blow, it's a cop. The defense then is "I didn't believe she was under age, I thought this was all part of the game, and that I was going to meet an adult interested in some role-play sex." Of course these police stings are the ultimate role-playing game.
In United States v. Joseph, 542 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2008), the divided court reversed the conviction. In dicta, the court said the court should reconsider the denial of expert testimony about role-playing in internet chat sessions, at retrial.
An important case involving the seating of a jury (Members panel) was argued today at the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is a summary of the case from SCOTUSBlog.
Argument Preview: Jury selection dynamics.
Here are the relevant background documents in Rivera v. Illinois, via SCOTUSWiki.
Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2009 Is Introduced In the Senate (S. 445).
Federal Evidence Review notes that Sen. Specter has re-introduced a bill that protects attorney-client privileged and work-product privileged information from use by prosecutors. This may, or may not, assist with the current issue about military email "access" issues.
The defense wins one.
Actually, yesterday I had the pleasure of being a semi-final judge for the National Security Law Moot Court Competition hosted at George Washington Univ. Law School. 23 teams from law schools around the country competed.
The two issues before the "U.S. Supreme Court" were:
Can Self-Authenticated, Certified Business Records Violate The Confrontation Clause? Federal Evidence Review, 30 July 2008.
Pointing to United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the reviewers posit that Fed. R. Evid. 902 (Mil. R. Evid.) leads to "testimony" in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Here, courtesy of Federal Evidence Review, is the proposed change to Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). Should this become the federal rule, it will become the military Rule 18 months later, absent affirmative action to the contrary. It's my understanding that the public comment period has closed.
United States v. Arrington, 296 Fed. Appx. 646, No. 08-4018, unpublished op. (10th Cir. 14 October 2009).
The estranged wife of the accused had no actual or apparent authority to consent to a search of the accused's hotel room. This was so even though the room was rented in the wife's mother's name and the wife paid for the room.
Here is a link Argument Preview: Jury selection dynamics, SCOTUSBlog, 21 February 2009 – more later perhaps.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
