Articles Posted in Members (Jury) Issues

Two years of federal evidence
Philip D. Cave

Once again one of my two favorite evidence blogs (federal evidence review) has published the annual “review” for 2013 and for 2014. Key Evidence Issues During 2013 1. Supreme Court Watch: Fifth Amendment (Self-Incrimination Clause): Kansas v. Cheever: Allowing The Government To “Follow” Where The Defense Leads On Defense Expert Mental State Evidence 2. Supreme…

Continue reading ›
The Members sieve
Philip D. Cave

Leaks from Members (or sometimes military judges) occasionally give rise to appellate litigation. Here is an interesting piece on federal evidence review: Motion for new trial on criminal extortion and bribery case denied, despite juror’s statement to newspaper after the verdict that because the defendants did not testify, the juror reasoned that “[if] they were…

Continue reading ›
Pretrial and trial publicity
Philip D. Cave

Federal Evidence Review references: In conspiracy and arson trial, reversing and remanding when trial court failed “to make adequate inquiries regarding news stories” that appeared during deliberations and their impact on juror’s deliberations; the judge erroneously failed to explore “whether any juror heard any of the information” and its impact on the jury, in United…

Continue reading ›
In the Supremes
Philip D. Cave

SCOTUSBlog notes two new petitions with potential impact on a court-martial practice under the UCMJ. Title: NIBCO, Inc. v. Rivera Docket: 10-383 Issue(s): (1) Whether a court of appeals must conduct a comparative juror analysis when reviewing a claim under Batson v. Kentucky, even though the comparative analysis was neither raised before nor considered by…

Continue reading ›
Humor in uniform lawyering
Philip D. Cave

The accused is charged with indecent assault on a complaining witness and rape on another complaining witness. Member: Sir I’m the unit victim advocate. Individual voir dire continues blah, blah, blah. Def: The defense objects on implied bias and liberal grant mandate. MJ: Explain why please. Def: Blah, blah, blah. TC: The government objects to…

Continue reading ›
A SPCM panel of at least three not unconstitutional
Philip D. Cave

(Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy) we have Sanford v. United States, No. 08-5402 (D.C. Cir. 13 November 2009), in which the court held that a SPCM with less than six members is not unconstitutional. The court notes that: This court has recognized that the standard of review in non-custodial collateral attacks on court-martial proceedings is “tangled.”…

Continue reading ›

Client Reviews

Many years after retiring from the USN, I suddenly found myself in a very unwelcome legal matter with the Navy. It was a total shock and I was very concerned as to the impact this would have on me and my...

Rob

I was facing accusations that would not only ruin my career but my life. When I hired Mr. Freeburg, he gave me the hope that everything would be turn out great. He put a great team together along with my...

Air Force Anonymous

Phil Cave has helped me through NJP and restoration of my security clearance. He even came to visit me in Spain. I never thought I would work again and he certainly through with advise and guidance that we're...

Bryan

Mr. Nathan Freeburg fought and won a war for me. A war where my life was on the line. The week of trial was extremely long but he never seemed like he was tired. The prosecution were getting whittled down each...

Navy Anonymous

Mr. Cave saved my military retirement! His promise to me from day one was that he would fight as hard as he could he right the wring that had been done to me. And he did! I am so very thankful and grateful to...

Crystal

Mr. Freeburg is passionate about justice and upholding the law and dignity of the court. He is brave and bold in his ability to represent his clients amidst the attempted intimidation and procedural pressure...

Navy Represented

The Army and prosecution was pushing for me to take a Chapter 10. But Mr. Freeburg made me confident we could win. We went to trial and he crushed them in cross examination and he saved my career.

Vince

Contact Us

  1. 1 Free Consultation
  2. 2 Over 40 Years of Experience
  3. 3 Dedicated to Military Law
Fill out the contact form or call us at 703-298-9562 to schedule your free consultation.

Leave Us a Message