The Guardian reports, Detective criticised for ‘getting too close’ in alleged rape case, 9 May 2016.
A senior judge has criticised a police detective and the Crown Prosecution Service for their handling of an accusation of gang rape after the case against four young men collapsed just as their trial was due to begin.
Judge Jamie Tabor QC said DC Ben Lewis of Gloucestershire police had got too close to the complainant and did not understand his job properly.
“Washington’s Supreme Court has thrown out the convictions of three men in what police called a gang-related shooting, finding among other things that music on one defendant’s phone was not evidence of gang ties.”
That’s the headline from the Seattle Times.
The slip opinion in State (Washington) v. Deleon is here.
The Army legal websites are back en clair, having been unavailable to the public for about five to six weeks. Of course, they came back up just as the AFCCA and CAAF were going dark. Anyway.
United States v. Commisso, No. 20140205 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 29 April 2016),
has an interesting discussion and resolution of “inappropriate relationships” under ¶4-14.b., AR 600-20.
· Police can tell when a suspect is lying
· People confess only when they have actually committed the crime they are being charged with
· Most judges and jurors fully understand court instructions
· Eye-witnesses are always the most reliable source of case-related information
· Most mentally ill individuals are violent
· All psychopaths are criminals
· We need to be ‘tough on crime’ by giving convicted felons harsher punishments
· The death sentence is an effective way to deter criminal activity
· Excitement improves memory
What do you think the right answer is to the above statements. Have a go before you — read on for the point. Continue reading
Working with expert witnesses can be difficult for even the most seasoned attorneys and trial consultants. Oftentimes, egos and expertise can get in the way of an expert’s ability to deliver persuasive testimony, requiring attorneys and trial consultants to be creative when developing solutions that fit both the problem and the expert witness. As trial consultants, we have gained valuable information on how to prepare expert witnesses for trial from the jury research we have conducted. For instance, we know that the best experts are capable of conveying they are honest, respectful people who have a firm grasp on the issues they are asked to testify about. When experts convey their insights in a polite, yet knowledgeable, manner they can be an invaluable asset at trial.
Tips for Preparing the Expert Witness, by Alyssa Tedder-King, M.S. from Litigation Insights and Katie Czyz, M.A. from Litigation Insights – April 25, 2016
DoD has published the Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for 2015.
Of the 6,083 initial complaints filed last year, about 1,500 were “restricted,” meaning the victim was a service member who reported the assault but refused to participate in any criminal investigation and only sought healthcare and victims’ support services.
(We don’t know how many of these would be substantiated by an MCIO, and then proceed further into the process. Because there is no investigation it is unreasonable to include these cases in statistics about prosecution and conviction rates.)
Adam M. Gershowitz, The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols and Particularity in Cell Phone Searches, 69 Vand. L. Rev. 585 (2016)
Margaret Dodson, Bruton on Balance: Standardizing Redacted Codefendant Confessions Through Federal Rule of Evidence 403, 69 Vand. L. Rev. 803 (2016)
This week, the Combat Clemency Project at the University of Chicago Law School petitioned for a Presidential Pardon on behalf of Corey R. Clagett, a former Army PFC released on March 31, 2016 from the US military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas after a decade of incarceration. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/review-combat-clemency-petitions-and-pursue-military-mental-health-reform
In United States v. Mercier, __ M.J. __, No. 20160318 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 18, 2016) the court denied a Government interlocutory appeal of a military judge’s ruling that found that a specification was improperly referred and dismissed the specification without prejudice.
This would seem to be a perfect opportunity to take up, again, two suggested improvements to military law practice.
Let’s have the President issue an Executive Order. The Attorney General of the United States issues several manuals for U. S. Attorneys. This is guidance from HQ intended to assure some measure of uniformity among the U. S. Attorney offices throughout the nation. It is time to impose something akin to the U. S. Attorney’s Manual by executive order (in particular, 9-27.000 – Principles Of Federal Prosecution)?
It should go without saying that a court-martial is a most serious matter, and the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt plays a vital role in the legitimacy of the military justice system. A “society that values the good name and freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.” In the military justice system, where servicemembers accused at court-martial are denied some rights provided to other citizens, our unique factfinding authority is a vital safeguard designed to ensure that every conviction is supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This authority “provide[s] a source of structural integrity to ensure the protection of service members’ rights within a system of military discipline and justice where commanders themselves retain awesome and plenary responsibility.”
United States v. Rivera, No. 38649, 2016 CCA LEXIS 92 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 2016)(unpub.).
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
