Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Prosecutor discipline?

January 24, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Remember Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)? Here’s the Justia summary.

At petitioner’s trial in a state court in which he was convicted of murder, the principal state witness, an accomplice then serving a 199-year sentence for the same murder, testified in response to a question by the Assistant State’s Attorney that he had received no promise of consideration in return for his testimony. The Assistant State’s Attorney had in fact promised him consideration, but he did nothing to correct the witness’ false testimony. The jury was apprised, however, that a public defender had promised “to do what he could” for the witness.

The failure of the prosecutor to correct the testimony of the witness which he knew to be false denied petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 360 U. S. 265-272.

Worth your read-pretrial agreements

January 24, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Military law and practice requires that any pretrial agreement discussions be conducted between the defense, the prosecutors, and the convening authority. The military judge is not allowed to be involved. The military judge’s involvement is during trial when she reviews a PTA with the accused to ensure it is all transparent and that it’s terms do not offend law or significant policy considerations. Historically, courts have been reluctant to permit agreements to incorporate terms that deprive an accused of basic fundamental rights. See e.g., United States v. Callahan, 22 C.M.R. 443 (A.B.R. 1956); United States v. Cummings, 38 C.M.R. 174, 177 (C.M.A. 1968); and United States v. Schmeltz, 1 M.J. 8 (C.M.A. 1975). R.C.M. 705 specifically lists examples of permissible and impermissible terms in a pretrial agreement.

The Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Schaffer, 12 M.J. 425, 428 (C.M.A. 1982) opened the door to non-traditional bargained for PTA provisions when it expressly acknowledged a judicial willingness to accept more complex PTAs, especially when the proposed term is proposed by the accused and his defense counsel. For some odd terms the courts don’t like:
An agreement providing for a reduction of the accomplice’s confinement sentence by one year for each occasion that the accomplice testified against his co-accused. The court in United States v. Scoles, 33 C.M.R. 226, 232 (C.M.A. 1963) held that the agreement “offered an almost irresistible temptation to a confessedly guilty party to testify falsely in order to escape the adjudged consequences of his own misconduct.”

Worth the watch –

January 22, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Is it IAC

January 19, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has granted a petition on the following issue:

WHETHER APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE WHICH STRONGLY CORROBORATED THE DEFENSE THEORY THAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THIS CASE WERE FALSE.

Here is a link to the AFCCA opinion in United States v. McIntosh, ACM 37977, 2014 CCA LEXIS 29 (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. January 17, 2014).

More bullets for you less for the enemy

January 18, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Sgt. Maj. of the Army Ray Chandler announced this week that senior enlisted personnel would be rated on their ability to police online social media activity, in what many are nicknaming the “Facebook bullet” on the non-commissioned officer report (NCOER).

So reports Duffelblog. I’ve always been of the view that there is a little or a lot of truth underlying humor. The truth here is that the military has a problem with social media postings. And so the joke is that part of the media management is to be critical of those who use social media – at times making it criminal, even to the extent of holding a member accountable for what their spouse or family member says online. In my view this may border very closely on affecting a persons constitutional right to speech. I’m well aware that there are limitations on a military members right to speak. So let’s hope we don’t get another report bullet to micromanage. Where is that line. But on to something perhaps more relevant.

The act of laughing at a joke is the result of a two-stage process in the brain, first detecting an incongruity before then resolving it with an expression of mirth. The brain actions involved in understanding humor differ between young boys and girls. These are the conclusions reached by a US-based scientist supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Worth the read for your weekend

January 16, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

“[W]e recognize that electronic communications are susceptible to fabrication and manipulation.”

Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545, 550 (Tex. App. 2012). Campbell and a number of other state and federal cases were support for my objection to text messages in a case this week. I had a 120 which as usual had text messages as evidence by the prosecution – and I objected to authenticity. Without going in to all of the facts, here are a few I thought relevant.

The CW had dropped her phone in the bath tub and it was no longer available for forensic examination. In my last seven 120 cases this is the second bathtub-drop, along with two drop-and-breaks and one turn it in. I’m beginning to get suspicious of what CW’s are being told once the photo of the text is cherry-picked and turned in.

Social media as evidence

January 5, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Professor Colin Miller has published two timely and important essays related to the introduction of social media evidence for its truth.

Contents May Have Shifted: Disentangling the Best Evidence Rule from the Rule Against Hearsay, 71 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. Online 180 (2014). Here is the abstract:

The rule against hearsay covers a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but does not cover a statement offered for another purpose. Meanwhile, the Best Evidence Rule states that a party seeking to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph must produce the original or account for its nonproduction. Does this mean that the Rule is inapplicable when a party seeks to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted in a writing, recording or photograph? Most courts have answered this question in the affirmative. This essay argues these courts are wrong.

Worth the read for a coming weekend

January 3, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

In Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past, by Ray Raphael, one of his issues of inaccurate historical reporting is about Paul Revere. The book is incisive, well-written, and well worth the read.

So it is in this context that I mention Michael Greenberg’s, The Court-Martial of Paul Revere: A Son of Liberty and America’s Forgotten Military Disaster, published in late 2014.

Lieutenant Colonel Revere defended himself against accusations of dereliction and disobedience. At trial he “confessed that he had initially disobeyed an order to deliver a barge to the general in charge, but once he remembered that General Wadsworth was his leader, he delivered the barge.” The disobedience sounds more serious – “On the question of leaving the area without orders to do so, Revere testified that there was such a state of confusion he shouldn’t have been expected to do otherwise.” Revere was found not guilty. From then began a long public relations campaign to restore his reputation – something accomplished by the time of his death in 1818 apparently.

An important reminder of what is inconsistent

December 26, 2014 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

If a witness testifies at trial the traffic light was red, the accused may ask if they told the police officer the light was green. And, depending on the answer the accused may offer extrinsic evidence of the inconsistency. This is a clear prior inconsistent statement. Usually there is no trouble identifying the issue. But what happens if the witness says I don’t remember, or is vague, evasive or something else?

The NMCCA has an unpublished opinion in United States v. Corcoran, which should be read for a fuller and better reminder of when a witness may be impeached with a prior inconsistent statement, and most importantly when extrinsic evidence may be offered.

In United States v. Harrow, 65 M.J. 190 (C.A.A.F. 2007). The court talked about the process of impeachment by prior inconsistent statement. It is a tool to question the witness and “By showing self-contradiction, the witness can be discredited as a person capable of error.” United States v. Banker, 15 M.J. 207, 210 (C.M.A. 1983). M.R.E. 613(b) allows extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement if the witness has been first given a chance to explain or deny the statement. Keep in mind that there can be no extrinsic evidence if the witness admits making the prior inconsistent statement. United States v. Gibson, 39 M.J. 319, 324 (C.M.A. 1994).

Sexual misconduct in the Brig

December 18, 2014 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Marine Corps Times reports the court-martial conviction of a female guard at Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig, CA.

Kohlman’s misconduct came to light when the prisoner, Shane Bardes, came forward last year with a detailed statement alleging she and other guards had taken advantage of his status as a prisoner to engage in various acts of sexual misconduct with him. His allegations — along with claims that his pleas for help were ignored by those in charge — were the subject of a November 2013 Marine Corps Times cover story.

One of the unnoticed issues surrounding military sexual assaults, actually sexually assaults in general is the likely frequency of female on male sexual assault. In the case of the Brig “power” might be the motivating factor. Interestingly this issue of abuse of power and rank and status is raised quite frequently with drill instructors, recruiters, and leaders. The issue gets very little attention when it involves a female accused. A cynic might argue that’s because the current attention is focussed on sexual assault as a gender crime rather than on the crime; who commits the offense – men – is the meme.