Articles Posted in Evidence

Professor Colin Miller uses an Alabama case to remind us that a prior misdemeanor conviction is not admissible under Rule 609(a). Under this Rule, then, it is clear that a party cannot impeach a witness through evidence that the witness has a prior misdemeanor conviction for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement. But…

My good friend Bill Cassara and I have done a lot of BAH/TCS fraud cases at court-martial under the UCMJ over the years. Typically the case involves a lot of documents from DFAS. The prosecution then calls a witness from DFAS to lay a foundation for the documents and then has the witness testify as…

MAJ Hasan’s UCMJ Article 32 hearing and likely court-martial is drawing and will continue to draw lots of attention — of course, duh. But just as we have seen in other high profile cases there are opportunities for what I call teachable moments. Here are two from the item posted by CAAFLog about the witness…

“Now what I want is, Facts.. . . Stick to Facts Sir!” (Charles Dickens, Hard Times, p. 1, Oxford World’s Classics, 1998.) Evidence may be admissible under Mil. R. Evid. 803(8) as an exception to the hearsay rule. Prof. Colin Miller reminds us that the exception is intended to cover recorded facts, not opinions.

Here’s a reminder about authenticating emails based on a posting from Prof. Colin Miller at EvidenceProfBlog. To paraphrase Prof. Miller: And, like its federal counterpart, [Mil. R. Evid.] 901(b)(4) provides that By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of…

Is how one of my favorite evidence blog prof’s describes a First Circuit case. I have previously commented on the issue in relation to MJ McDonald’s Army Lawyer article. Federal Rule of Evidence 605 provides that The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be…

United States v. Foisy, __ M.J. __, No. NMCCA 201000026 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. July 20, 2010). (Thanks to an early posting of the decision by CAAFLog.) Rodriguez and Gilbride deal with Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) rule of completeness. Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) is a longstanding rule of completeness pertaining to confessions introduced against an…

Federal Evidence Review has a good reminder that what may appear to be statements admissible as excited utterances may not in fact be so. Thus, defense as always your job is to ensure that the prosecution doesn’t get away with ritualistic or talismanic incantations of, “it’s an excited utterance (or some other exception)”.” United States…

Federal Evidence Review notes the following: In conspiracy to distribute controlled substances prosecution, physician-defendant could not assert that the medical records of his patients were subject to a doctor-patient privilege because the federal courts do not recognize this privilege under FRE 501, in United States v. Bek, 493 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. July 6, 2007)…

Professor Colin Miller has posted an excellent piece about the current status of expert testimony about the inaccuracies of eyewitness identification. I have done several posts on this blog (here, here, here, here, here, and here) about the inaccuracy of regular and cross-racial eyewitness identifications and whether expert testimony about this inaccuracy should be allowed.…