Court-Martial Trial Practice

New ACCA opinion
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
Exclusion of video-tape deposition under Crawford.
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
Peremptory challenges
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
Giles update
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
IAC
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
New CAAF grants
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
Hearsay within hearsay
Philip D. Cave

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 ›

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