Greg Bruno, Backgrounder: Closing Guantanamo, Council on Foreign Relations, 12 February 2009.
You will notice a reference to trial by court-martial under the UCMJ.
Some, including legal experts with the Congressional Research Service,
Peter Tillers, Prior False Accusation Evidence and the Confrontation Clause, 12 February 2009, draws attention to an excellent law review piece potentially relevant to a frequent number of military sexual assault cases.
Admitting Prior False Accusation Evidence in Sexual Assault
United States v. Goode, No. 07-2269, 2009 U. S. App. LEXIS 2471, unpublished op. (3d Cir. 9 February 2009).
The interesting point for this case is that the court found that telling a person to stop, ordering them to lie on the ground, and placing them in handcuffs is merely an investigative "stop." Once additional evidence is developed then the person can be arrested and then searched incident to arrest.
Fortunately this is not a situation likely to occur in military cases on base. But the case is interesting to read for a reminder of searches incident to arrest.
Professor Miller has an interesting post today, Lie To Me?: Supreme Court Of Maine Opinion Reveals That Jury Deliberations Can Be Used To Prove Juror Deceit During Voir Dire,11 February 2009.
2009 WL 249236 (D. Me. 2009), reveals the important point that while
United States v. Gross (Military Judge), Army Misc. 20081049 unpublished op. (A. Ct. Crim. App. 9 January 2009). [When you get to the court site, go to the "summary dispositions – by date" page.]
This case is a government petitione for an extraordinary writ (not listed in the Denedo pleadings at the Supreme Court as a overusage of the All Writs Act?).
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has now started loading cases to populate the "Summary Disposition" page. Get there through A.C.C.A.
The court has also posted several new cases — more later.
Vol. 7: Long-Term Consequences of Traumatic Brain Injury, 2008, published by the Committee on Gulf War Health: Brain Injury in Veterans and Long-Term Health Outcomes.
It can be obtained free — but only in a .pdf download (unless you want to pay $70.20 for a paper copy).
David Mills hosts a fabulous blog — Courtoons.
Join him at his site daily.
Evan Knappenberger, Acknowledge soldier's right to object, Seattle PI.com, 9 February 2009.
Mr. Knappenberger is described as, "an Iraq War veteran and a Davis-Putter Scholar at Whatcom Community College in Bellingham."
He argues that war objectors should be treated the same as conscientious objectors.
Yesterday (090209) A.F.C.C.A. updated its online opinions. There are three worth reading for the trial practitioner.
United States v. Curran, ACM 37185 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 22 January 2009). This is an interesting issue where the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence on sentencing about the time and effort involved to investigate the allegations against the accused. The court terms this "Unit Impact Sentencing Evidence," and of course agree it is admissible. The hasten to add that even if error, the error was nonprejudicial because the defense counsel did a great job of minimizing the impact of the testimony. Before you know it we'll be punishing accuseds for exercising their constitutional rights — See United States v. Stephens, 66 M.J. 520 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2008).
United States v. Camnetar, ACM 36448, 2009 LEXIS 40 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 30 January 2009). The two issues of interest are a suppression motion of CP found on a DVD as well as computer, and whether the defense counsel failed to adequately investigate an alibi. On the suppression, there is an interesting point about the reliability of the "informant." This is not a true informant case. And of course, even if there is error, the "good faith exception" cures all.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
