Here is an interesting case from the First, United States v. Cameron, decided 14 November 2012. The issue is confrontation and the admission of various internet provider records. I think this case helpful in litigating the paper that the prosecution seeks to use in CP cases. We thus presume that…
As Prof. Colin Miller TG points out in a new post, Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6), applies to both sides. The Mil. R. Evid. contains the same language. For an example of a case in which the government forfeited its right to object to the defendant’s admission of hearsay from a…
Here, from Prof. Berman TG at Sentencing Law & Policy is a reminder about evidence in CP cases. I think most of us already do this, and a number of prosecutors already think of this. A notable Third Circuit panel ruling today in US v. Cunningham, No. 10-4021 (3d Cir.…
The new Mil. R. Evid. may not apply to any offense committed prior to it’s effective date? Is there an argument that application to an offense prior to the effective date violates the ex-post facto clause. See Calder v. Bull, 100 U.S. 1 (1798). Article I, section 9 of the…
Occasionally there is a case involving bite mark evidence and testimony. This type of testimony is subject to challenge under Houser. Here I am talking about a case where the bite mark testimony goes to prove the identity of the accused. So, to that end the defense needs resources to…
Except in a slightly different context, but still a similar point. Errin Morris, Cognitive Biasl and Evaluation of Forensic Evidence, The Champion, NACDL, May 2012. Remember, USACIL and all the others get a full brief sheet on why the evidence should be tested and lots of facts. The subsequent testing…
Well, I use Wikipedia for research. But, I use it “in some limited situations . . . for getting a sense of a term’s common usage." Fire Insurance Exchange v. Oltman & Blackner, Case No. 201004262-CA, 2012 UT App 230 (Utah App. 2012)(discussing the uses and reliability of Wikipedia as…
To paraphrase CMTG, Military (Federal) Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1) provides that A statement is not hearsay if: 1. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement. 2. The declarant testified under oath at a prior “hearing” or “or proceeding.” 3. The prior statement is inconsistent with…
In trial of defendant for sexually abusing two minors, the admissibility of evidence that victims had made false accusation of sexual abuse against others was admissible, not under FRE 403, FRE 412, or 608(b), but rather under the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation, in United States v. Frederick, 683 F.3d…
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…