Close

Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Updated:

Can MRE 404(b) allow for an end-run around Hills and Hukill?

The answer is possibly, but it requires some very specific analysis using the Reynolds test.  The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has decided United States v. Hyppolite, II, where this issue arose. In this case, the prosecution sought to use evidence of different allegations of a sexual offense to show…

Updated:

Employment opportunity-possible VET related

Bethesda, Maryland based law firm is seeking a full-time attorney to join our appellate litigation team in representing individual clients claiming benefits from a federal agency. Responsibilities include federal appellate case management; research of applicable laws, regulations, and legal precedent; the preparation of briefs for submission to federal court; and…

Updated:

Why I raise Grostefon errors on your behalf

Appellant personally raises three matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982),one of which warrants discussion and relief. My colleagues and I often discuss the value of Grostefon.  My personal theory is to be robust in asserting Grostefon errors on behalf of the client.  This is based on…

Updated:

Private internet speech is unlawful if an officer in the AF

11 October 2018.  Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 18-0339/AF. U.S. v. Scott A. Meakin. CCA 38968. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue: WHETHER APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR…

Updated:

Worth the Read (WTR) for 23 September 2018

Frederic Bloom, Character Flaws.  89 U. COLORADO L. REV. 1101 (2018). Character evidence doctrine is infected by error. It is riddled with a set of pervasive mistakes and misconceptions—a group of gaffes and glitches involving Rule 404(b)’s “other purposes” (like intent, absence of accident, and plan) that might be called “character flaws.” This Essay…

Updated:

Canadian Court-Martial Appeal Court has decided an important constitutional challenge to jurisdiction

In a legal earthquake for the military justice system, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC) has split 2-1 to strike down s. 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act (NDA) because the majority held that the provision — which deems Criminal Code offences committed in Canada by military members to be “service offences”…

Contact Us
Start Chat