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.
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.
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.
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:
constitutes hearsay;
(3) the defendant is deprived of his
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.
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.
Those with an interest in forensics
have been waiting for the much touted National Research Council report
on the state of "forensic science" in the U.S. The National
MAJ Joel P. Cummings, Is Article 125, Sodomy a Dead Letter in Light of Lawrence v. Texas and the New Article 120? The Army Lawyer, January 2009.
United States v. Bell, No. 06-4413, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2901 (6th Cir. 17 February 2009). Recently published, this case is a decent primer on automobile stops with drug dog sniffs: what turns a traffic stop into a seizure, etc.
What happens if any enlisted person is reduced at court-martial, or an officer who faces a grade-determination consideration, for conduct as far back as late 2000, and later retires?
10 U. S. Code 1407 sets it out for us.
(f) Exception for Enlisted Members Reduced in Grade and Officers Who Do Not Serve Satisfactorily in Highest Grade Held.—
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
