I was not surprised about the thoughts expressed in this survey. What did surprise me was the apparent extent of the feeling.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/survey-male-marines-fear-false-sexual-assault-accusations-with-women-in-combat/2013/02/01/d906ee80-6cce-11e2-8f4f-2abd96162ba8_story.html
Iowa State University, Department of Psychology
University of California, Irvine – Department of Psychology and Social Behavior
January 16, 2013
Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 11, 2013, Forensic Psychology, Chapter 25, R.K. Otto and & I.B. Weiner (Eds), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2013-88
Abstract:
This chapter begins with a summary of the case of Thomas Brewster, who was tried for murder based in large part on eyewitness testimony. Ultimately DNA came to Brewster’s rescue, and he was freed before the trial ended. Analyses of taped interviews in the case help reveal how the interviewing process itself may have tainted the eyewitness testimony. The chapter continues with discussions of new psychological research on memory for complex events. This work shows how the details of events can be changed when witnesses are exposed to post-event information that is misleading. And with enough suggestion, entire events can be planted into the mind of ordinary healthy adults. The final section discusses new findings concerning eyewitness memory for people. This includes eyewitness identification of previously seen strangers, and new findings on procedures that can reduce mistaken identifications.
In United States v. Lindsey, __ F.3d __ (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013) (Nos. 11–3485, 11–3513), the court found that notice of intent to use some 404(b) evidence was timely and reasonable. The notice was given twice, a year before trial and again earlier than 30 days from trial.
In assessing the reasonableness of the notice the court “considered a three-factor test, whicn required that:
Here is an interesting published decision from ACCA in United States v. Pleasant.
The case has a warning, and a reminder of what we often tell clients about testifying. In this case the issue being whether or not the testimony is helpful or hurts, and as ACCA considers:
When an accused testifies on his own behalf, he does so at his own peril, risking that he might fill in gaps or provide affirmative evidence contributing to or resulting in his conviction.
Federal Evidence Review has this list of issues they see as important in the coming year.
Note item 2 was decided by the Supremes 9 January, with a ruling that the accused bears the burden to establish withdrawal from conspiracy.
I read Federal Evidence Review daily. It’s an excellent resource on the federal rules of evidence. Here is their “top ten” list for 2012. Obviously not all the points are relevant to MJ practitioners.
Similar to its federal counterpart, Minnesota Rule of Evidence 803(6) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for
A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.
After he was convicted, the appellant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the transaction journal as a business record under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 803(6).
As noted in yesterday’s post, Federal Rule of Evidence 414(a),
In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.
So, what exactly counts as "child molestation" for Rule 414(a) purposes? Let’s take a look at the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Utah in United States v. Gardner, 2013 WL 53845 (D.Utah 2013).
Slate has a piece,
The Catch-22 of Eyewitness ID, Juries trust the memory of witnesses even when they shouldn’t.
h/t How Appealing.
SCOTUSBlog has this of potential interest.
The petition of the day is:
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
