Rule 1102. Amendments. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to the Military Rules of Evidence 18 months after the effective date of such amendments, unless action to the contrary is taken by the President. On September 19, 2008, Fed. R. Evid. 502, a new evidence rule concerning the attorney-client privilege and work-product…
Continue reading ›Court-Martial Trial Practice
It app-ears that ear print comparisons have been advocated as a method of identifying a perpetrator. But, it app-ears that the British courts are giving the so-called expert an earful of doubt. Andre A. Moenssens, Another Ear Print Conviction Reversed! (Prof. Moenssens is one of several law professors to follow on issues of forensics and…
Continue reading ›There may be a legitimate question that the Intoxlyzer 5000 does discriminate against African-Americans. This test is in use throughout much of DoD. It seems at least worth researching and filing a Houser motion in regard to this technology if your client is African-American, and perhaps if the client is a woman. See United States…
Continue reading ›In considering whether conduct of a private citizen is subject to the Fourth Amendment, our court considers “whether the government had knowledge of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct; whether the citizen intended to assist law enforcement agents or instead acted to further his own purposes; and whether the citizen acted at the government’s request.”…
Continue reading ›“In Internet ‘sting’ cases such as this,” the issue of “what a defendant’s state of mind was immediately prior to his contact with a sexual target purporting to be a minor is routinely a serious point of contention. We call the issue one of ‘predisposition,’ and it is primarily a question of fact.” United States…
Continue reading ›United States v. Smither, No. 09-3-KSF, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17231 (E.D. Ky. March 6, 2009), is worth the read for a refresher on challenging search warrants because the information is stale. Those of us who have tried are well aware that it’s almost impossible to have a child pornography warrant suppressed for staleness. The…
Continue reading ›Personally, from experience, I’m not sure they do. However, Judge Emmett Sullivan, of the D.C. for D.C. doesn’t think so. Here is an item on The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes, Judge Threatens Justice Lawyers With Contempt Over Detainee Documents, 13 March 2009. So-called Brady rules require prosecutors to hand over information to defense attorneys…
Continue reading ›Here is an interesting CAAF grant in a Coast Guard case. No. 08-0719/CG. U.S. v. Webster M. SMITH. CCA 1275. Review granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE VIOLATED APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSERS BY LIMITING HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF [SR], THE GOVERNMENT’S ONLY WITNESS, ON THREE OF THE FIVE CHARGES. Appellant…
Continue reading ›Kevin Maurer, Wounded soldier’s care probed, FayObserver.com, 11 March 2009. If this report is believed, injured and wounded soldiers in medical holding company’s are disciplined at a higher rate than line company’s. Apparently, it is not an excuse for a failure to go that your prescribed medication for you injury or illness causes you to…
Continue reading ›Two new CAAF cases have been put up on the website. United States v. Stephens, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. Mar. 12, 2009). The prosecution called the victims father to talk about the effect the trial had on her. Appellant, citing United States v. Mobley, 31 M.J. 273 (C.M.A. 1990), United States v. Carr, 25 M.J.…
Continue reading ›




