Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Members selection and associated errors

February 21, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a link Argument Preview: Jury selection dynamics, SCOTUSBlog, 21 February 2009 – more later perhaps.

Article 2/MEJA Scorecard

February 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The prosecution of civilians at court-martial has been an interesting development since the Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, changes. For a little background see the earlier musings on this topic.

There has been only one private contractor ever indicted by the Department under MEJA for any sort of physically abusive or violent crime – Aaron Langston of Snowflake, Arizona, charged with assaulting a fellow contractor in Iraq with a knife. See United States v. Aaron Bridges Langston, CR-07-210-PHX (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Ariz., Indictment, Feb. 27, 2007).

Reported in, US military court-martialing civilian contractor Ali while DOJ slumbers, 19 May 2008.

Civil commitment and sex offenders.

February 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

First Person Civilly Committed as Sexually Dangerous Person Under AWA, Sex Crimes blog, 13 February 2009. Professor Yung is reporting an event reported to him.

This is worth reading. I've had at least one prior child pornography client picked up while on parole for hanging around children in a local child's play-park.

To commit an individual under [the AWA] provisions, the Government must

Whaa, whaa, it’s just so hard.

February 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Fisher, ARMY 20080012 (A.Ct.Crim.App. 20 February 2009). This case was submitted on its merits. After a review, the court specified two issues, both of relevance to trial advocates and military judges. After finding error, the court found no relief warranted because the error was not prejudicial. We have addressed something similar in the past. See, Trial Counsel Argument – A Judge's Duty.

Specified Issues:I.

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN HE ALLOWED TESTIMONY FROM SFC ESSINGER AND ARGUMENT BY TRIAL COUNSEL, DURING AGGRAVATION AND SENTENCING, THAT: (1) THE COMMAND WAS PERCEIVED TO BE “SOFT ON CRIME” DUE TO THE LENGTH OF TIME IT TOOK TO BRING THE CASE TO TRIAL, AND; (2) THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THE MAN-HOURS REQUIRED “DEALING WITH LEGAL PAPERWORK, COUNSELINGS, AND TAKING THE ACCUSED TO AND FROM APPOINTMENTS”?

More on Voodoo Science

February 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Karen Franklin reports a “guest” piece, by Prof. Mnookin, Professor and Vice Dean, UCLA Law School. See actually, Jennifer L. Mnookin, Clueless ‘science,’LA Times, 19 February 2009.

The article is about the congressionally funded National Research Council report on forensic science (look to my earlier posts). Several points that have been on my mind for some years.

Bias: Doctors testing a new medicine are — appropriately — not told which

The Sniff Test.

February 19, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Prof. Colin Miller, The Bloodhound Gang: Detroit Free Press Article Addresses Admissibility Of Bloodhound Tracking Evidence, EvidenceProf Blog, 19 February 2009. Professor Miller notes the majority rule that courts generally admit evidence that bloodhounds tracked down a defendant. The minority rule is that such evidence is per se inadmissible because:

(1) the actions of the bloodhounds are unreliable;
(2) the evidence

constitutes hearsay;
(3) the defendant is deprived of his

Electronic filings.

February 19, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

There has been much discussion about electronic filings in military appellate litigation. Some of that has been generated because of how civilian courts operate electronically. And of course, more recently as a result of the supposed missed deadline brouhaha in United States v. Rodriguez. CAAFLog has much information on these two issues (if my link doesn't work, just use "Rodriguez" as your term in the CAAFLog search box. But this item below is also interesting.

See, Donna Bader, The Perils of the Electronic Age, An Appeal to Reason blog, 8 February 2009.

Voodoo Science.

February 19, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

What do you do if you have government sponsored or endorsed "science" that helps catch thieves, cheats, and liars, and other scientists question the validity of your science — you threaten a lawsuit for libel.

Professor Tillers has picked up on the interesting topic of voice analysis as first raised on Deception blog. He's noted the interesting twists on the issue, including the fact that the magazine that first published the contradictory article removed it from the web — too late. The offending article was already snapped up and is still available.

See, Prof. Peter Tillers, Voodoo Science in Some Putative Lie Detection Techniques? Tillers on Evidence and Inference, 16 February 2009.