Court-Martial Trial Practice

What is the status of an accused being forced to divulge passwords on computers suspected of having contraband.

As an update in a recent case in which the government obtained an order compelling in individual to provide access to decrypted information on seized hard drives, In the Matter of The Decryption of a Seized Data Storage System (EDWI May 21, 2013) (No. 13-M-449), the government reported that it was able to decrypt some but not all of the data which has been used in support of an arrest warrant in the case

The Federal Evidence Blog has been following the few cases so far addressing whether theFifth Amendment may disallow efforts by the government to compel an individual to decrypt computer information. As one recent example, a court originally denied a government application to compel decryption under the Fifth Amendment, and then granted the ruling upon reconsidering additional information submitted in an ex parte application. See In the Matter of The Decryption of a Seized Data Storage System (EDWI May 21, 2013) (No. 13-M-449); See generally Compelling Access To Encrypted Information (Part II) (Jan. 30, 2012) (summarizing case). There is a new development in the case.

Filed today, a motion to vacate related to the “appointment” of an appellate judge by the Secretary of Defense: Judge Soybel

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201308060021.aspx

This is somewhat off topic, but something military personnel deal with fairly regularly.

The Driver License Compact is an interstate agreement between 45 states to exchange information about license suspensions and traffic violations of non-residents, including DUI offenses. Its theme is “One Driver, One License, One Record.”

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/08/how-does-the-driver-license-compact-affect-duis.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Blotter+%28FindLaw+Blotter%29

I’ve done some work with Dr. Benjamin.

He’s directed me to a new blog worth following (it’s now in my Feedly).

Here’s the issue  de jour.

We are told so often it is nauseating how perfect the military drug labs are.  But then we read items like this about the Fort Meade lab.

Note, unlike the servicemembers who’s urine is screened the offending employees were put back in training and counseled on not lying.  If this were a military member in trouble they would be racking and stacking the charges like crazy.

CAAF continues to deal with cases where the terminal element in Art. 134 cases has not been plead.  While the cases are not being terminated, a number are visiting a local stop along the way.  Quite a few summary dispositions with:

On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States X Court of Criminal Appeals, and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J.202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE CHARGE SHEET AND GOVERNMENT CASE-IN-CHIEF REASONABLY PLACED APPELLANT ON NOTICE OF THE TERMINAL ELEMENT WHERE THE ONLY MENTION OF THE TERMINAL ELEMENT WAS DURING THE MILITARY JUDGE’S FINDINGS INSTRUCTIONS.

We all know and believe that DNA can be the smoking gun or the exclusion factor.  But, the NYTimes highlights some interesting issues about the reliability of DNA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/high-tech-high-risk-forensics.html?_r=0

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_gets_suspension_for_impersonating_college_acquaintance_on_lesbian_da/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=ABA+Journal+Top+Stories

Click to access 12-5038-1447998.pdf

Maybe, maybe not.  The effort to create one through the Congress has stalled.  So courts must deal with the issue on a case by case basis.

With renewed interest on possible legislation recognizing a reporter’s privilege, the courts remain divided on whether to recognize a reporter’s privilege and on the scope of any privilege; the division was noted by the Seventh Circuit inMcKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2003); will legislation be enacted in this Congress to recognize a privilege?

Military courts have addressed the issue most recently in United States v. Wuterich. and CBS v. NMCCA.