Impeachment with conviction. Mil. R. Evid. 609(b) issues of impeachment with a prior conviction rarely come up at court-martial. But if there were to be a prior conviction there may be some interpretation necessary. So parsing several posts of Prof. Colin Miller the Great at Evidence Prof Blog, here we go. If you want to…
Continue reading ›Military (Federal) Rule of Evidence 803(3) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove…
Continue reading ›From my very first opinion on this Court, I have consistently concluded that Mil.R.Evid. 410 must be applied broadly to be consistent with its purpose. United States v. Barunas, 23 M.J. 71, 75-76 (CMA 1986). See also Fed.R.Evid. 410. Speaking for the Court in Barunas, I said: The general purpose of Mil.R.Evid. 410 and its…
Continue reading ›Introducing evidence or refreshing recollection? TC: May I approach the witness? MJ: Yes. TC: I’m handing prosecution exhibit 3 to the witness, please look at that. DC: Can we see that first please? TC: Your honor we gave a copy of this to the defense in discovery. DC: Your honor such a comment is improper…
Continue reading ›
