United States v. Brasington, ARMY 20060033 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 5 October 2009).
On 10 September 2008, our superior court granted appellant’s petition for grant of review on the following issue:
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL ALLEGEDLY PROVIDED INCOMPETENT ADVICE REGARDING THE LACK OF THE DEFENSE OF MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Monday will have the first oral argument of this term in a case relating to criminal law and procedure. Here’s the reminder from the LawProfBlog.
Monday, Oct. 5
Maryland v. Shatzer: limits on police questioning after a suspect asks for a lawyer
Here is a good post from FederalEvidence blog.
Court denies motion to compel return of e-mail message after concluding the disclosure was not inadvertent under FRE 502(b) since defense counsel “had ample opportunity to discover and assert the claimed privileged status of the e-mail” and failed to do so, in Clarke v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 08 Civ. 02400, slip op. (SDNY Apr. 10, 2009)
This is the headline of an article by John Ramsey in the Fayetteville Observer, 28 September 2009. There are plenty of other articles coming out because of the interest in the case.
An Army sergeant charged with involuntary manslaughter asked this morning for a jury made up of one-third enlisted soldiers.
Sgt. Justin A. Boyle is one of seven soldiers accused of accidentally killing Pfc. Luke Brown last summer after he ran wildly into the woods behind the Ugly Stick Saloon.
This is the name given to statistical errors that can arise when deciding the probability that a DNA sample is that of the accused. This is potentially more meaningful than usual to Troy Brown who was convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder. He has a twin brother.
This transposition of the conditional probability can produce results that range from the approximately correct to the grossly inaccurate. Without discussing the extent of the mathematical error, Mueller’s letter stated that this transposition was "so common it has been given a special name, the prosecutor’s fallacy."
Indeed, the fallacy abounds in the statements of judges, defense counsel, and journalists. Statistics textbooks, evidence casebooks and treatises, and judicial opinions all caution against it.
Check out FederalEvidenceReview blog.
Under Mil. R. Evid. 1102, if approved the change will become effective in courts-martials 18 months later (unless the DoD President says otherwise).
/tip federalevidence.com
Do you have client accused of shoplifting, a senior officer or senior enlisted perhaps, a really good person who no-one would have imagined as stealing from the Exchange? Can you explain that?
For some years I have successfully argued from this book (e.g. in a Gen. Off. Art.15, or with the AFBCMR).
Will Cupchik, Why Honest People Shoplift or Commit Crimes of Theft (Revised), Tagami Comms., 2002
I’ve already noted that Briscoe is a very interesting follow-on to Melendez-Diaz about the use of forensic analysis reports at trial where the chemist is not called as a witness. See here, here, and here.
Here is a link to the Brief just filed on behalf of the
07-11191 Briscoe v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Here is a commentary from Prof. Colin Miller on his blog I love to read about Wuterich. He begins:
All but two states have some type of reporter's privilege. Similarly, most federal courts have recognized some type of reporter's privilege as well. But what about military courts? Well, to this point, they haven't recognized a reporter's privilege, and that did not change with the recent opinion of the United States Navy-Marine Corps of Criminal Appeals in United States v. Wuterich, 2009 WL 2730890 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2009).
Prof. Miller concludes:
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog