ACCA issued published opinion today finding error and granting relief in United States v. Amazaki, ARMY 20070676 (A. Ct. Crim. App. March 31, 2009). We hold, as a matter of due process, appellant was not on fair notice that his conduct, arising from simply negligent possession of child pornography, violated Article 133, UCMJ, under the…
Continue reading ›Court-Martial Trial Practice
This case could be very helpful to an accused overseas where the prosecution lets witnesses go PCS or off active duty prior to trial, with the idea that the deposition or Article 32, UCMJ, hearing testimony could be used. Note, this case doesn’t talk about MLAT’s. The government’s minimal efforts to contact an “unavailable” witness…
Continue reading ›Here is the NMCCA en banc opinion in United States v. Neal, __ M.J. ___ NMCCA 200800746 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. March 31, 2009), regarding Article 120, UCMJ. .
Continue reading ›The Supreme Court has decided Rivera v. Illinois. Justice Ginsburg wrote for a unanimous court. This case concerns the consequences of a state trial court’s erroneous denial of a defendant’s peremptory challenge to the seating of a juror in a criminal case. If all seated jurors are qualified and unbiased, does the Due Process Clause…
Continue reading ›Courtesy of FederalEvidence blog we have an update on Giles. In Giles v. California [documents at SCOTUSWiki], the Supreme Court [Giles the opinion] considered the application of the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception under the Confrontation Clause and likely Crawford v. Washington, which allows an unconfronted testimonial statement to be admitted where a defendant commits a…
Continue reading ›Here is the most recent Supreme Court case on IAC claims and evaluation of them. Knowles v. Mirazanyance, ___ U.S. ___ (March 24, 2009). In this case the appellant sought to convince the courts that his counsel’s failure to advance a defense was ineffective. The issue revolves around the existence or potential existence of a…
Continue reading ›A change to Fed. R. Crim. Pro. recently adopted reminds me of a motion I file from time to time after the member’s have found my client guilty, or at the time the military judge asks if there is anything else before adjourning the court — that’s a Griffith motion. But first here is the…
Continue reading ›Here are a couple of CAAF grants of immediate interest to trial practitioners. No. 08-0808/AR. U.S. v. Derand M. DAVIS. CCA 20070808 (couldn’t see this on the Army public website). Review granted on the following issue: WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED, TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE POST-TRIAL PHASE…
Continue reading ›David G. Savage, Who’s Policing the Fourth Amendment? Two cases push the unevenly enforced exclusionary rule closer to repealABA Journal, April 2009. Another writer musing on the potential demise of the Fourth Amendment as we thought we knew it.
Continue reading ›Here is a post from Prof. Colin Miller reminding us that hearsay within hearsay is still a potential objection to the contents of business records sought to be admitted under a Mil. R. Evid. 803 exception. Prof. Colin Miller, Layering Effect: Ninth Circuit Finds Public Record With Hearsay Within Hearsay Was Improperly Admitted, EvidenceProf blog,…
Continue reading ›




