Court-Martial Trial Practice

it almost always does – if the error was harmless.

federal evidence review blog brings a reminder as follows:

What are the limits in which a trial court may examine witnesses under FRE 614? The Third Circuit recently assessed the boundaries of a judge’s questioning of witnesses in a case involving a defendant who represented himself at trial. Although the judge’s motivations were understandable, none-the-less the judge erred because he “abandon[ed] his proper role and assume[d] that of advocate,” in United States v. Ottaviano, __ F.3d __ (3d Cir. Dec. 24, 2013) (Nos. 11–4553, 13–1119)

Intriguing.  Does military search and seizure depend upon and have to follow state law, even if it is a “federal” officer doing the searching and seizing?

This Article argues for a model of the Fourth Amendment – the contingent Fourth Amendment – that courts and commentators have overlooked. It asserts that the only common-law rules that the Fourth Amendment freezes into the Constitution are those explicitly set forth in the Warrant Clause: rules against warrants that are general, issued on less than probable cause, or unsupported by oath or affirmation. The residuum of constitutional search-and-seizure rules were to be dictated by state law, even when it was a federal officer doing the searching or seizing. On this approach, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a federal officer is generally constrained by the search-and-seizure law of the State where a federal search or seizure occurs.

Michael Mannheimer, The Contingent Fourth Amendment, Northern Kentucky University – Salmon P. Chase College of Law, December 11, 2013

The ever sentient Prof. Colin Miller brings us a good reminder to be careful, at his evidence prof blog.

Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a)(4) states as follows:

(a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:….

Article 10, UCMJ, may be dead.  But there is still activity on the Sixth Amendment confrontation front.

Here’s an interesting case dredged up by federal evidence review blog about a 40 year old affidavit and its treatment under the Sixth.

Fifth Circuit reverses conviction after the government failed to meet its burden to show that an affidavit was non-testimonial under theConfrontation Clause under the Supreme Court’s “primary purpose” test; circuit also rejects proposed accusatory test as lacking support in precedent or in the text of the Sixth Amendment, in United States v. Duron-Caldera, _ F.3d _ (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2013) (No. 12-50738)

I was reminded the other day when working on an appellate case of a toolbox item worth the read.

I often review TJAGSA teaching materials when working on a case.  I used to also look at NJS materials, but for some reason they are no longer available to the general public through the various Navy websites.  Even experienced practitioners should consult the TJAGSA materials for at least two reasons:  they can be a helpful start to understanding or identifying an issue, and they likely predict a prosecution response.  Both sides should review the materials, but as I caution a defense counsel they should remember it is the school solution so more likely government biased.

Anyway, we frequently face prosecutions under federal law charged as an Article 134, UCMJ, violation.

People have been all over the place in terms of like or dislike for the new SVC system the military is putting in place for sexual assault cases.  Frankly, most of what the system is doing doesn’t trouble me.

I’ve been more concerned with how it works in practice so that I can either use it to my benefit or prepare for damage control, or something.  So, last week I got to address one of my thoughts in court.

We were in a 412 motion and the complaining witness elected to be represented through counsel.

Back when I was a Magistrate Judge between 1987 and 1992, many federal prosecutors followed an “open file” policy. That is, the defense lawyer got access to the complete investigative file–everything the prosecutor had–except for legal research and the prosecutor’s outgoing correspondence. The defense lawyer was able to copy whatever the lawyer wanted. That seems sensible to me. Indeed, I would be inclined to change the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require prosecutors to open their investigative files. Oh, sure, there are problems with witness intimidation or retaliation in prison and that sort of stuff. But, those problems can be dealt with. More importantly, I want snitches scared–fear serves as an antidote to lies and exaggeration (think drug quantity, for example).

So, if I were the King (and I should be), prosecutors would be required to show their investigative files to defense lawyers and allow those lawyers to copy whatever they wanted. A rule requiring complete transparency would go along away to disinfecting the germs that Chief Judge K. sees as the genesis of the plague. But, what the hell do I know?

http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/12/15/my-take-on-brady-violations-in-federal-court/

Judge Kopf at Hercules and the Umpire, someone you should follow, references this case in regard to “the most interesting man in the world.”

See United States v. Olsen.

Center for Prosecutor Integrity.

An Epidemic of Prosecutor Misconduct.

Prosecutor Ethics in Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Cases

How do you get attention, you say:

Two-Thirds Of Military Supreme Court Cases Are About CP

Perhaps a little known reality is the overwhelming flow of CP appeals into the docket of the U.S. military’s highest appellate court.  About two-thirds of the docket in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces consists of  CP appeals.