It took how long?!%#@
Well, in United States v. Gonzalez, a Coast Guard general court-martial, the sentence was announced on 27 July 2011. The case did not get docketed with the CGCCA until 19 December 2014. That means a total of 1,241 days went by before the appellate court began a mandated review under UCMJ art. 66(c).
And people wonder why appeals take so long.
(W)e seem to be on an endless quest to unmask the deceiver. This is easier said than done. The research is surprising.
- Even the professionals aren’t very good at catching people in a lie.
- When we do catch a lie, it’s often not for the reasons you may expect.
Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test.
So says a report in The Guardian.
Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test.
We do a lot of military sexual assault cases with alcohol involved. It is not unusual for a complaining witness to claim they were drunk, blacked out and didn’t consent.
First, if blacked out they can’t know they didn’t consent–it’s impossible if they were blacked out, rather than them exhibiting a convenient and selective memory.
Second, we know from medical science that a person can do a whole lot of things which does include the voluntary, and apparently consensual engagement is sexual activity. Here is an example, out of many, how a person can engage in a lot of thoughtful and physical activity and not remember it.
Military and civilian counsel military cases is bound by Service rules of professional responsibility as well as their bar. The military RPC are based on the ABA Model Rules. Thus, ABA interpretations can be meaningful and helpful.
What do you do with the client file when the case is over?
This past July, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 471 Ethical Obligations of Lawyer to Surrender Papers and Property to which Former Client is Entitled
Several relevant items for you this weekend.
Orin Kerr has this post at The Volokh Conspiracy. In part:
Computer searches usually happen in two stages. Agents take the computer, make a mirror image copy of its hard drive on a government storage device, and then search the image. Officers do this to ensure the integrity of the original data. Searching can alter the contents on the computer, so working from a copy preserves the original.
The NMCCA has issued an interesting published opinion on a government appeal.
United States v. Rios. From the opinion.
I posted the other day about Latorre v. FCI Elkton.
A colleague who’s thoughts I value very highly had some things to say.
Worth-the-read is A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, is the source for the ABA article I just posted about ancient documents.
There is another proposal in the Draft relevant to technology. The drafters are suggesting changing FRE 902, which as we know will likely change MRE 902 18 months later (absent action from the Prez.).
902 (13) Certified Records Generated by an Electronic Process or System. A record generated by an electronic process or system that produces an accurate result, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that complies with the certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12). The proponent must also meet the notice requirements of Rule 902(11).
The abundance of electronically stored documents is spurring a committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference to propose abolishing the “ancient documents” rule.
The rule—803(16) of the Federal Rules of Evidence—allows the admission of documents that would usually be banned as hearsay if the documents are at least 20 years old and appear authentic. The National Law Journal (sub. req.) has a story on the proposal to scrap the rule.
A committee report (PDF) said the rule “has always been questionable” but it has been tolerated because it is infrequently used, and usually in cases where there is no other evidence on point.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
