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…
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…
“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…
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…
Thanks to Professor Colin Miller for this piece. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court recently found that certificates of state laboratory analysts are "testimonial" and thus covered by the Confrontation Clause. Thus, if the forensic analysts (or similar experts) who prepared such certificates (or similar documents) do not testify…