The Reporter, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Fall 2008) has a couple of articles worth reading. Major Jefferson McBride, CONFRONTATION CLAUSE: The Way Ahead with Remote Testimony, p. 20. Major Thomas Dukes, EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY? A Brief History, Including [United States v.] Long, [United States v. ] Larson, and DOD’s New Computer Use Policy, p.22. For…
Continue reading ›Solomon Moore, Science Found Wanting in Nation’s Crime Labs, N.Y. Times, 4 February 2009. John Eligon, New Efforts Focus on Exonerating Prisoners in Cases Without DNA Evidence, N.Y. Times, 7 February 2009. Criminal justice experts say exonerations have shed light on two circumstances once thought to be extremely rare or even inconceivable: Witnesses are sometimes…
Continue reading ›Do you ever get the client or family member who want to sue NCIS, OSI, CID, CGIS, for what they did in an interrogation. Barring application of Feres (ha, some English major has to find something wrong with that). Check out Smith v. Campbell, et. al., 295 Fed. Appx. 314, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19085…
Continue reading ›C.A.A.F. has DNA on its conference agenda. In a post-conviction access to DNA evidence case: The district court found that Bradley had a constitutionally protected interest in his life but that the due process protection of that interest was diminished by his conviction. United States v. King, No. 07-12073, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2056 (11th…
Continue reading ›NACDL has an interesting News Release, Civil Liberties, Religious Groups Seek to Require Warrants for Police GPS Surveillance. A diverse group of civil liberties and religious organizations this week weighed in on the question of whether police need a warrant in order to conduct surveillance of personal vehicles by secretly attaching global positioning satellite (GPS)…
Continue reading ›Dr. Karen Franklin is one of many reporting the results of a survey in New Jersey on the effectiveness of Megan’s law. Karen Franklin, Megan’s Law: Millions for Nothing, 5 February 2009. Bottom line: Despite their enormous popularity, little research has been conducted into whether they work. Now, a federally funded study (submitted December 2008)…
Continue reading ›I have Rules of Engagement for clients: for their conduct around the court-house, in the court-room, and on the witness stand. If you’ve done a case with me you have the ROE. They need it, and typically the more senior the client the more the need for ROE. So, it’s timely of Angus to talk…
Continue reading ›The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has decided United States v. Lanier, No. 20080296 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 4 February 2009). The opinion has some current value, even though this is a guilty plea and adequacy of the providency case. In this case the appellant was granted EML from duty in Iraq because his father…
Continue reading ›United States v. Jones, No. 07-10289-MLW, 2009 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 6434 (D. Mass. 21 January 2009).* Prosecutors do this all the time. Prosecutors either fail to provide discovery or do so in a slow-rolling fashion. As the recent decision in Jones illustrates, it’s a gamble. The gamble is that provided there is no showing of…
Continue reading ›The A.C.C.A. website now lists United States v. Rosas on it’s argument schedule. CAAFLog notes that the, “[Harvaad] web site doesn’t provide any guidance as to members of the public (including members of the military) without a Harvard i.d. would be admitted to the argument.] So, the existence of the argument is a little more…
Continue reading ›
