Well, I use Wikipedia for research. But, I use it “in some limited situations . . . for getting a sense of a term’s common usage.” Fire Insurance Exchange v. Oltman & Blackner, Case No. 201004262-CA, 2012 UT App 230 (Utah App. 2012)(discussing the uses and reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information). See…
Continue reading ›Articles Posted in Evidence
So, let’s say that a witness answers a question during the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation, and then refuses to answer the same question at a subsequent trial? Does his answer at the Article 32, UCMJ investigation constitute a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(A)? Well, an Article 32, UCMJ, investigation is certainly an “other proceeding”…
Continue reading ›In trial of defendant for sexually abusing two minors, the admissibility of evidence that victims had made false accusation of sexual abuse against others was admissible, not under FRE 403, FRE 412, or 608(b), but rather under the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation, in United States v. Frederick, 683 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. July 5,…
Continue reading ›Impeachment with conviction. Mil. R. Evid. 609(b) issues of impeachment with a prior conviction rarely come up at court-martial. But if there were to be a prior conviction there may be some interpretation necessary. So parsing several posts of Prof. Colin Miller the Great at Evidence Prof Blog, here we go. If you want to…
Continue reading ›Military (Federal) Rule of Evidence 803(3) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove…
Continue reading ›Maybe not. There is quite a bit of research and anecdotal evidence to show that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Now New Jersey is in the frontline of making sure a jury is aware of the potential problems with eyewitness testimony. To quote the ABA Journal. New jury instructions in New Jersey will warn that…
Continue reading ›The Inspector Rutledge detective stories are a favorite of mine. To quote an Amazon review: [T]he books are set in the period just after the First World War, and Inspector Rutledge is a veteran of said conflict. Even more unique, he’s haunted by the ghost of one of his subordinates, a corporal whom Rutledge had…
Continue reading ›From my very first opinion on this Court, I have consistently concluded that Mil.R.Evid. 410 must be applied broadly to be consistent with its purpose. United States v. Barunas, 23 M.J. 71, 75-76 (CMA 1986). See also Fed.R.Evid. 410. Speaking for the Court in Barunas, I said: The general purpose of Mil.R.Evid. 410 and its…
Continue reading ›Courtesy of federalevidence here is their list of potential significant evidence issues affecting criminal cases this coming year. Supreme Court Watch: Williams v. Illinois: Confrontation Clause – Pending Decisions Confrontation Clause: More Notice and Demand Rules? Supreme Court Watch Open Issue: Confrontation Clause – Resolving An Open Issue on the Scope Of Dying Declarations Circuit…
Continue reading ›Thanks to federalevidencereview.com here is an interesting case about preserving the issue for appeal. In this case there was a pretrial motion and the judge denied the defense its requested relief. The government claimed the plain error standard would apply, as at trial the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal. The Tenth Circuit…
Continue reading ›




