Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogTo qoute CAAFLog:
Here's a link to NMCCA's unpublished opinion in Chessani, which it released today. Bottom line up front: the Government's appeal is denied.
Articles Posted in New Cases
Air Force cases
AFCCA has put up a number of cases on their website, here are just a few.
United States v. Taylor, ACM 37065 (March 12, 2009). A case worth reading where the MJ allowed speculative testimony about date rape drug use. Affirmed.
United States v. Russell, ACM 37210 (March 12, 2009). Part way through a contested members case the prosecution asked for and got, over defense objection, a 40 day delay to get a witness whose absence from trial was caused by the government. I'd love to see the defense try that one.
New CAAF cases.
Two new CAAF cases have been put up on the website.
United States v. Stephens, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. Mar. 12, 2009). The prosecution called the victims father to talk about the effect the trial had on her.
Appellant, citing United States v. Mobley, 31 M.J. 273 (C.M.A. 1990), United States v. Carr, 25 M.J. 637 (A.C.M.R. 1987), and Burns v. Gammon, 260 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2001), argues that the father’s testimony was an impermissible comment on Appellant’s right to plead not guilty, confront the witnesses against him, and put the Government to its proof, and hence constitutional error.
MJ Recusal
United States v. David, ACM S31478 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 10 February 2009), is of interest on the question(s) of when a military judge should recuse him or herself from a case. Here the military judge disclosed, in a naked urinalysis-cocaine case, close family member was a drug addict.
The issue was raised as a Grosty. While not a law review discussion of MJ recusal issues, it's worth reading for the reminder on the basics. Perhaps the trial defense counsel thought the MJ might be more sympathetic in some way so did not make a challenge, that could be a reasonable strategy.
New research tool.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has now started loading cases to populate the "Summary Disposition" page. Get there through A.C.C.A.
The court has also posted several new cases — more later.
Recent A.F.C.C.A. opinions
Yesterday (090209) A.F.C.C.A. updated its online opinions. There are three worth reading for the trial practitioner.
United States v. Curran, ACM 37185 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 22 January 2009). This is an interesting issue where the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence on sentencing about the time and effort involved to investigate the allegations against the accused. The court terms this "Unit Impact Sentencing Evidence," and of course agree it is admissible. The hasten to add that even if error, the error was nonprejudicial because the defense counsel did a great job of minimizing the impact of the testimony. Before you know it we'll be punishing accuseds for exercising their constitutional rights — See United States v. Stephens, 66 M.J. 520 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2008).
United States v. Camnetar, ACM 36448, 2009 LEXIS 40 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 30 January 2009). The two issues of interest are a suppression motion of CP found on a DVD as well as computer, and whether the defense counsel failed to adequately investigate an alibi. On the suppression, there is an interesting point about the reliability of the "informant." This is not a true informant case. And of course, even if there is error, the "good faith exception" cures all.