Prof. Colin Miller, The Bloodhound Gang: Detroit Free Press Article Addresses Admissibility Of Bloodhound Tracking Evidence, EvidenceProf Blog, 19 February 2009. Professor Miller notes the majority rule that courts generally admit evidence that bloodhounds tracked down a defendant. The minority rule is that such evidence is per se inadmissible because: (1) the actions of the…
Continue reading ›Court-Martial Trial Practice
There has been much discussion about electronic filings in military appellate litigation. Some of that has been generated because of how civilian courts operate electronically. And of course, more recently as a result of the supposed missed deadline brouhaha in United States v. Rodriguez. CAAFLog has much information on these two issues (if my link…
Continue reading ›What do you do if you have government sponsored or endorsed “science” that helps catch thieves, cheats, and liars, and other scientists question the validity of your science — you threaten a lawsuit for libel. Professor Tillers has picked up on the interesting topic of voice analysis as first raised on Deception blog. He’s noted…
Continue reading ›Those with an interest in forensics have been waiting for the much touted National Research Council report on the state of “forensic science” in the U.S. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has this to say: Finding an inconsistent system rife with “serious deficiencies,” lacking practitioner and laboratory independence, standards, oversight, and certification, the…
Continue reading ›MAJ Joel P. Cummings, Is Article 125, Sodomy a Dead Letter in Light of Lawrence v. Texas and the New Article 120? The Army Lawyer, January 2009.
Continue reading ›United States v. Bell, No. 06-4413, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2901 (6th Cir. 17 February 2009). Recently published, this case is a decent primer on automobile stops with drug dog sniffs: what turns a traffic stop into a seizure, etc.
Continue reading ›What happens if any enlisted person is reduced at court-martial, or an officer who faces a grade-determination consideration, for conduct as far back as late 2000, and later retires? 10 U. S. Code 1407 sets it out for us. (f) Exception for Enlisted Members Reduced in Grade and Officers Who Do Not Serve Satisfactorily in…
Continue reading ›I’m blogging about the presentation given yesterday at the 39th (VA) Annual Criminal Law Seminar. The most important point I learned is that military justice practitioners, myself included, are not necessarily competent to advise a client properly on immigration consequences of a conviction. This of course doesn’t matter too much if it’s a not guilty…
Continue reading ›Do you have clients who want to know about search warrants or authorizations, and do you want information and access? Well of course. Here’s an interesting case which raises the issue of access to search warrant materials pre-indictment under the Fourth Amendment — or in the military pre-preferral. If the premise of the case is…
Continue reading ›As noted earlier, the Smith Amendment was changed recently. An astute reader has provided a new name for us — the commenter refers now to the “Bond Amendment.” Instead of the old Smith Amendment at 10 U.S. Code 986, the new law on security clearances for persons sentenced to confinement or certain punitive discharges is…
Continue reading ›




