The Pentagon Chapter of the Federal Bar Association will be throwing an end of oral argument season bash — though, as it turns out, about a month before the final CAAF oral arguments. The festivities will be held at CAAF at 1500 on 27 May 2009. Beverages and light refreshments will be served. All members of the court’s bar are invited.
Colin Miller, Thieves Like Them: Court Of Appeals Of Minnesota Explains The Boundaries Of Proper Prosecutorial Comment During Closing, 17 April 2009.
It is well established that a prosecutor may not belittle or disparage the defendant(‘s case) during closing argument. At the same time, "[a] prosecutor has discretion to fashion a persuasive closing argument, and the rhetoric need not be colorless."
Peterson subsequently appealed, claiming that the prosecutor’s comments crossed the line mentioned above. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding "that the prosecutor did not characterize appellants defense as ridiculous or otherwise." It distinguished the case before it from cases where prosecutors referred to the defense as "soddy" or "ridiculous" or suggested that the jurors would be “suckers” or "snowed" if they believed the defense.
For those who descry the efforts of proponents for change in the military justice system, yesterday could be thought of as a historical reminder that change is hard to achieve.
On 12 April 1633, the Roman Catholic church began it’s heresy inquisition of Galileo.
CAAFLog has a rant today (one of his many and always meaningful), but it’s well worth considering. So before the Tory’s hold their auto da fé on DHS, I have an additional money related question (one I’ve been asking since 1991), why do we need three JAG schools, why can’t the Army take single service responsibility. There are many areas where one of the Services has single service responsibility (for example military confinement facilities). The idea of differences in Service approaches to issues (and a similar argument to the multiple CCA’s) is just that, an argument. Having spent the last nine years since retiring from the Navy practicing in Navy, Marine, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, courts, I’ve yet to see a situation where there is so much Service difference that a reasonably competent teaching staff can’t address it. And if it’s such a problem, do what the Armed Forces Staff College does, have “Services Week,” either at the beginning (as AFSC does) or the end.
There are several new published and unpublished opinions on AFCCA’s website today; including a Lawrence v. Texas issue raised, the continuing effort of the prosecution in punishing an accused for exercising his constitutional rights to a trial, an issue of vindictive prosecution.
United States v. Harvey, __ M.J. ___ (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. 2009). This is a consensual sodomy case implicating Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
This case was previously discussed by CAAFLog. What’s interesting is that in oral argument the government seemed to concede no additional element of prejudice under Article 133, UCMJ, but then tried to retract that concession.
The full agenda for this year's Judicial Conference is now available on line.
As I sit in the VA crim law CLE we have an hour on immigration issues and convictions. The VA crim law Bar considers the consequnce of conviction to be a “very important” aspect of criminal law practice. And other consequences seem just as important.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Peter Tillers, Prior False Accusation Evidence and the Confrontation Clause, 12 February 2009, draws attention to an excellent law review piece potentially relevant to a frequent number of military sexual assault cases.
Admitting Prior False Accusation Evidence in Sexual Assault
Professor Yung at Sex Crimes blog has brought attention to a Tennessee decision which would allow expert testimony about an accused's sleepwalking in a child sexual abuse case. He ponders that, "I always discuss sleepwalking as an example, but students sometimes
doubt it ever really comes up. I never imagined it would be a defense
in a child molestation case."
Among the cases denied review were a test of the privacy of a worker’s
computer when the employer agrees to let police search it for
criminal activity — an issue raised by state officials in Florida v. Young (08-528)
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog