Are military law enforcement investigations complete, thorough, and unbiased? It depends. The MCIO leadership and agents will tell you they are. Our experience over the years both as military defense counsel and military prosecutors is that investigations can be incomplete, with leads not followed, evidence not retrieved, and bias in the reports submitted to prosecutors…
Continue reading ›Articles Posted in Witness issues
We know that some people lie about being sexually assaulted. We know that one of the reasons–motives–or as psychologists say “the secondary gain,” is to protect a marriage or relationship. We know that some women are like men, they cheat on their spouse. Yet investigators often ignore these knowns–in following orders to believe the “victim”…
Continue reading ›Like it or not, consistent or not consistent with long-held notions of justice, a military member accused of a sexual assault is presumed guilty. Sure command and others will say you are going to get a fair hearing and trial, but that’s not reality. Over 100 Law Professors, Others Call on DOJ to Stop Junk-Science…
Continue reading ›Let’s take a look at United States v. Criswell, a case decided by the Army adverse to the appellant, and now pending review at CAAF, on the following issue. No. 18-0091/AR. U.S. v. Andrew J. Criswell. CCA 20150530. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army…
Continue reading ›As you know, Military Rule of Evidence 1102 provides that, Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence – other than Articles III and V – will amend parallel provisions of the Military Rules of Evidence by operation of law 18 months after the effective date of such amendments, unless action to the contrary is taken…
Continue reading ›The Virginia legislature has passed SB1563. There are several provisions which should be adopted in military cases. D. Whenever the Commonwealth intends to introduce expert opinion testimony at trial, the attorney for the Commonwealth shall notify in writing the accused of the Commonwealth’s intent to present such testimony not later than 14 days before trial,…
Continue reading ›“We thus readily conclude that ex parte communications between a military judge and an SVC are generally proscribed.” Yes, inexplicably, it was necessary for the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) to decide such an issue, as part of deciding what impact, if any, SVC’s ex parte communications had in a trial–a chilling thought.…
Continue reading ›Very broad. Or, that’s how I interpret a 2-1 Order in H.V v. Kitchen and Randolph (RPI), MISC D. No. 001-06 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 8 July 2016). At trial, the defense sought mental health records of the complaining witness. After litigation on the issue, the military judge ruled that M.R.E. 513 did “not prevent…
Continue reading ›There is an excellent post at Volokh Conspiracy. Here’s the problem in a nutshell: So much at trial can turn on the testimony of a police officer. For a criminal defendant, life and liberty may depend on the ability to impeach the officer’s testimony. The federal constitution, as interpreted by Brady v. Maryland and its…
Continue reading ›Yes, is my answer, or at least that is my answer in a brief filed with the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and in several arguments at court-martial. Under Mil. R. Evid. 801(2), you can offer the out of court statements of an opposing party or certain statements of that parties lawyer as evidence. Such…
Continue reading ›




