Evidence Category Archives — Page 12 of 24 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog Published by International Military Lawyer

not exceptional hearsay

July 27, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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 the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

While the rule appears to allow a broad exception for hearsay, the Supreme Court of VA points out the narrowing language still has effect.*

It was him, I’m sure

July 20, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Maybe not. There is quite a bit of research and anecdotal evidence to show that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Now New Jersey is in the frontline of making sure a jury is aware of the potential problems with eyewitness testimony. To quote the ABA Journal.

New jury instructions in New Jersey will warn that human memory is not foolproof and eyewitness testimony must be carefully scrutinized.

Set to take effect on Sept. 4, the new instructions follow a landmark ruling last year by the New Jersey Supreme Court that makes it easier for defendants to challenge the reliability of eyewitness identifications, the New York Times reports. The decision also required juries to be instructed on the variables that could lead to mistaken identifications.

b‘ware

July 20, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Inspector Rutledge detective stories are a favorite of mine. To quote an Amazon review:

[T]he books are set in the period just after the First World War, and Inspector Rutledge is a veteran of said conflict. Even more unique, he’s haunted by the ghost of one of his subordinates, a corporal whom Rutledge had to shoot and kill after the man panicked and tried to run away during a battle. The dead man doesn’t blame Rutledge for the incident, not exactly anyway, and serves as a sort of alter ego for Rutledge. You’re never entirely certain whether Hamish MacLeod’s ghost is really there, or merely a figment of Rutledge’s imagination, given that he was horribly scarred psychologically by the war.

Hamish talks to the inspector and is often quicker to spot a problem, an inconsistency, or a wrong – “b’ware” he’ll say, or sometimes just “’ware.”

A greater “privilege” reminder

July 1, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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 federal civilian counterpart, Fed.R.Evid. 410, is to encourage the flow of information during the plea-bargaining process and the resolution of criminal charges without "full-scale" trials. See United States v. Grant, 622 F.2d [308,] at 313 [(8th Cir. Ark. 1980)]; see generally Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 260-61, 92 S. Ct. 495, 497-98, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971). An excessively formalistic or technical approach to this rule may undermine these policy concerns in the long run. United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d [791,] at 797 [(5th Cir. Fla. 1977)].See generally Wright and Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 5345 (1980). A failure to recognize and enforce the military expansion of this rule may have the same effect. 23 M.J. at 76.

United States v. Anderson, 55 M.J. 182 (C.A.A.F. 2001)(Sullivan, J., concurring).

I think it fair to consider Mil. R. Evid. 410 a form of privilege although not found in the 500 series of rules. Fourthamendment.com notes an interesting case about application of Fed. R. Evid. 410. In reading the case it appears the federal courts may take a more restrictive view of the rule compared to application of Mil. R. Evid. 410.

Evidence issues for 2012

January 4, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Courtesy of federalevidence here is their list of potential significant evidence issues affecting criminal cases this coming year.

Supreme Court Watch: Williams v. Illinois: Confrontation Clause – Pending Decisions

Confrontation Clause: More Notice and Demand Rules?

Supreme Court Watch Open Issue: Confrontation Clause – Resolving An Open Issue on the Scope Of Dying Declarations

Circuit Split: Waiving An Objection to a Stipulation Under the Confrontation Clause

Circuit Split: Admission Of Pre-Miranda Silence

Circuit Split: Whether the Rule of Completeness Allows Inadmissible Evidence to be Admitted?

More Judicial Criticism of the “Inextricable Intertwinement" Theory

Rule Amendments: “Restyling” Federal Rules of Evidence

Pending Rule Amendment: FRE 803(10) – Absence of Public Record

Cameras In The Courtroom: Increasing Requests for Televising Supreme Court Proceedings

On item 8., which will depend on how the President “adopts” the restyling. Interesting that there may be issues surrounding implementation of the restyled rules.

The FRE were “restyled” by amendments effective December 1, 2011. The amendments were intended to make the rules easier to use and were not intended to result in substantive changes. As the restyled rules are applied, one question will be whether language differences in the new version result over time in substantive modifications.

Preservation of the issue

February 1, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Thanks to federalevidencereview.com here is an interesting case about preserving the issue for appeal. In this case there was a pretrial motion and the judge denied the defense its requested relief.

The government claimed the plain error standard would apply, as at trial the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal.

The Tenth Circuit disagreed that plain error applied to the issue. The circuit noted that while the matter did not develop at trial, it had been the subject of a motion in limine by the defendant. The trial court rejected the motion in limine. The circuit noted a standard that applied in the circuit to whether a party’s actions were sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. In doing so, the court noted FRE 103(a), which relieves a party from having to renew an object at trial if the court had previously made "a definitive ruling on the objection." FRE 103(a).

Blazier trail

January 1, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

You may be familiar with the quote:

In every case involving [state your poison], we are confronted with relativity and the degree to which such conduct may have affected the substantial rights of the defendant. It is better to follow the rules than to try to undo what has been done. Otherwise stated, one ‘Cannot unring a bell’; ‘after the thrust of the saber it is difficult to say forget the wound’; and finally, ‘if you throw a skunk into the jury box, you can’t instruct the jury not to smell it’. Dunn v. United States, 307 F.2d 883, 886 (5th Cir. 1962)(emphasis added).

And you may be familiar with this research.

I object!

December 25, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Waive it or raise it at work – and at a court-martial under the UCMJ.

Judge Ed Carnes for the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Rodriguez, No. 08-16696, Dec. 22, 2010:

This case poses the question of whether there is a vindictive judge or cowardly counsel exception to the contemporaneous objection rule. Unless there is such an exception, the only issue that the appellant is pressing on appeal is barred for failure to object because she cannot meet the requirements of the plain error rule. Disagreeing with the Second Circuit, we hold that the possibility a judge may be unhappy with an objection does not excuse the failure to make it.

Federal Rule of Evidence change

December 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

An important change to the Federal Rules of Evidence begins today. That means, absent Presidential action, the rule will take affect in the military no later than 18 months from now. This is a significant change requiring the prosecution to corroborate statements against penal interest.

On December 1, 2010, a new amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence takes effect. The rule concerns the admission of statements against interest under FRE 804(b)(3) has been amended so that the corroborating circumstances requirement for admission of a declaration against interest applies to statements against penal interest introduced by the government as well as those by the defendant in criminal cases. This requirement previously applied to statements introduced by the defendant.

See Mil. R. Evid. 1102. Thanks to FederalEvidenceReview for the reminder.

Impeachment

November 10, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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 does a witness open the door for such impeachment by testifying that he only completed the Eleventh grade if the reason that he did not complete his high school education was the conviction? According to the recent opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama in Beemon v. State, 2010 WL 4380238 (Ala.Crim.App. 2010), the answer is "no."

The prosecution had argued that the accused’s testimony had “opened the door.” The appeals court also rejected that basis for admission. Of interest though, for trial counsel, and for defense counsel to be looking out for, was this part of the court’s opinion.