Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Cross examination as to credibility

November 17, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is an interesting case from the Tenth, about cross-examination of a witness about a prior judicial “finding” that the witness was not credible — United States v. Woodard.

The court states this basic principle from its own jurisprudence:

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a defendant to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. One of the primary interests secured by the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause is the right of cross-examination. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974). This is the“principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.” Id. at 316. A violation of this constitutional right occurs when “the defendant is prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination that, as a result, precludes him from eliciting information from which jurors could draw vital inferences in his favor.” United States v. Montelongo, 420 F.3d 1169, 1175 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Stated differently, “‘a defendant’s right to confrontation may be violated if the trial court precludes an entire relevant area of cross-examination.’” Id. (quoting Parker v. Scott, 349 F.3d 1302, 1316 (10th Cir. 2005)).

Worth the read

November 16, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I received an initial eRelease of certain chapters from, The Attorney’s Guide to Defending Vets in Criminal Court, soon to be published in hard copy.

Very interesting chapters devoted to PTSD.

Here’s a tie in the United States v. Bales.

Confrontation and authenticating IP documents and reports in CP cases

November 15, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is an interesting case from the First, United States v. Cameron, decided 14 November 2012. The issue is confrontation and the admission of various internet provider records. I think this case helpful in litigating the paper that the prosecution seeks to use in CP cases.

We thus presume that Cameron’s challenge is to the following categories of evidence: (1) the Yahoo! Account Management Tool and Login Tracker data — this data was attached to the CP Reports and was also produced in response to search warrants; (2) electronic receipts of Yahoo’s CP Reports to NCMEC — these receipts were produced by Yahoo! in response to search warrants; (3) NCMEC’s CyberTipline Reports to ICAC; and (4) the Google Hello Connection Logs.

It’s character

November 14, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a cheat sheet for character evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Worth the read about Member bias

November 4, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

What Happens in the Jury Room Stays in the Jury Room . . . but Should It?: A Conflict Between the Sixth Amendment and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), Amanda R. Wolin, 60 UCLA L. Rev. 262 (2012).

Why continuing discovery issues

November 2, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Because rather than punish prosecutors, the courts shift the burden to the defense and provide excuses for the prosecutors.

Prosecutors Hide, Defendants Seek: The Erosion of Brady Through the Defendant Due Diligence Rule
Kate Weisburd, 60 UCLA L. Rev. 138.

Padilla and retroactivity

November 2, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The potential impact of Padilla v. Kentucky is ongoing. Two primary issues.

Is the holding retroactive. The Supremes have that issue before it.

Does Padilla extend the defense counsel obligations beyond immigration consequences?

Shaken baby syndrome

October 18, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

A new piece on this difficult subject.

Examining Shaken Baby Syndrome Convictions in Light of New Medical Scientific Research

Dual or multi-purpose

October 10, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is an interesting little piece.

The outbreak of violence by individuals who seek to harm other persons or institutions cannot be reliably predicted today, the Defense Science Board said in a new report to the Secretary of Defense. Instead, efforts to counter violence should focus on prevention and mitigation of the threat.

The DSB was created and tasked in response to MAJ Hasan and the Fort Hood shootings. But does the report have important learning points in regard to sexual assault prevention.

Collateral attack

October 1, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

on court-martial convictions.

Here is another case in which a military prisoner has attempted to litigate his trial, and been denied.

Faison v. Belcher (the former Commandant, USDB).