Court-Martial Trial Practice

The various breath test instruments used by the military and civilian police are subject to challenge, for a number of reasons. Here’s a “report” about the Intoxilyzer 8000 courtesy of PS.

Prosecutors ask CID, NCIS, OSI, CGIS agents all the time why they didn’t believe the accused in the interrogation. The answer often is a variant of, “he was nervous.” Yeah, right. First they are told and usually escorted to the LE office. The escort won’t tell them why or what’s going on. They then have…

http://www.denverda.org/dna/DNA_Nonhuman.htm Thanks to BW, who shall remain otherwise anonymous.

The Rule in Queen Caroline’s case is inconsistent with the present intent of Mil. R. Avid. 613(b). But the rule is still applied (IMHE) in courts-martials and in a split of federal circuits. We may be headed back in time. Schaffzin on the Return of the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case Katharine Traylor Schaffzin (University…

Opinions, published and unpublished. A nice discussion of judicial opinions in military cases can be found at United States v. Clifton, 35 M.J. 79 (C.M.A. 1992).

We’ve seen some recent cases discussing the issue of over zealous argument by trial counsel on the merits. What to do, oh what to do. How about object! And, Although not essential to the decision in this case, another matter raised by trial and appellate defense counsel warrants comment. In argument prior to sentence, trial…

NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & THE LAW at Stetson University College of Law “SHARING KNOWLEDGE TO PROMOTE JUSTICE” The relationship between law and science and technology has been called both an essential alliance and a reluctant embrace, Sheila Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (1996). Judges, lawyers, scientists and…

Federal Evidence Review alerts us that: The Seventh Circuit is the first circuit to publish revised jury instructions based on the recent ruling Supreme Court ruling clarifying the burden to withdraw from a conspiracy in Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. _, 133 S.Ct. 714 (Jan. 9, 2013), which abrogated prior Seventh Circuit cases on…

Remember that under Mil. R. Evid. 1102, any changes to the federal rules become effective in court-martial practice 18 months after federal enactment, unless the President directs changes. So, federalevidencereview brings us: Public Comments Critical Of Proposed Amendment To FRE 801(d)(1)(B) (Prior Consistent Statement) (Part IV) Under what circumstances may prior consistent statements be considered?…

Prof. Colin Miller has an interesting post about application of Rule 412, under Texas law, as decided in Johnson v. State, 2013 WL 531079 (Tex.App.-Waco 2013). From Under the Shield: Court of Appeals of Texas Finds Rape Shield Rule Doesn’t Cover Alleged Victim’s Sexual Misconduct Texas Rule of Evidence 412 mimics the federal rule which…