Articles Posted in Up Periscope

The UCLA Law Review has an excellent series of articles about forensic “science.”

The primary article:

The methods, techniques, and reliability of the forensic sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines in particular, have faced significant scrutiny in recent years. Critics have attacked the scientific basis for the assumptions and claims made by forensic scientists both in and out of the courtroom. Defenders have emphasized courts’ longstanding acceptance of forensic science evidence, the relative dearth of known errors, and practitioners’ skill and experience. This Article reflects an effort made by a diverse group of participants in these debates, including law professors, academics from several disciplines, and practicing forensic scientists, to find and explore common ground. To what extent do the forensic sciences need to change in order to place themselves on an appropriately secure foundation in the twenty- first century? We all firmly agree that the traditional forensic sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines, such as fingerprint, firearm, toolmark, and handwriting identification evidence in particular, do not currently possess—and absolutely must develop—a well-established scientific foundation. This can only be accomplished through the development of a research culture that permeates the entire field of forensic science. A research culture, we argue, must be grounded in the values of empiricism, transparency, and a commitment to an ongoing critical perspective. The forensic science disciplines need to substantially increase their commitment to evidence from empirical research as the basis for their conclusions. Sound research, rather than experience, training, and longstanding use, must become the central method by which assertions are justified. In this Article, we describe the underdeveloped research culture in the non-DNA forensic sciences, offer suggestions for how it might be improved, and explain why it matters.

Karen Franklin reviews an excellent book on the important subject of sex offender treatments that may work.

An interesting comment related to:

Denial: Not necessarily a bad thing

The Supreme Court has decided Michigan v. Bryant, a confrontation clause case.

Professor Friedman has this to say:

A very unfortunate result. The vote was 6-2, per Justice Sotomayor (a surprise to me); the basis of the decision was that the primary purpose of the statements was to resolve an ongoing emergency (also a surprise to me). . . . . I will write more after I have had a chance to read and absorb the opinions.

HotAir has this interesting perspective, with some more background “facts,” on the recent issue of manipulating the media and Congress.

Rolling Stones shot at General Caldwell misfires.

Stars & Stripes reports:

In response to Rolling Stone’s article accusing a top general in Afghanistan of instructing subordinates to use psychological operations techniques on visiting U.S. dignitaries, the general’s chief spokesman, Lt. Col. Shawn Stroud, has sent a “personal message” to colleagues and members of the media to “categorically deny the assertion.”

New York Times reports:

The Post & Email has a piece titled:  Citizen to Sen. Scott Brown: Investigate Alleged Military Corruption:  SENATOR IS AWOL WHEN IT COMES TO CONVICTED SERGEANT OF MARINES FROM HIS OWN STATE.

The following letter was sent by Sgt. Timothy J. Harrington to Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown regarding Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins, who was court-martialed and received an 11-year sentence for allegedly killing an Iraqi man in 2006.  Hutchins has served four years of that sentence at Ft. Leavenworth, was released for nine months pending his appeal, butreturned to prison on Friday, February 18, 2011.

AP reports:

Eight years ago, a child protection investigator and a deputy sheriff removed a 9-year-old Oregon girl from her classroom and questioned her at length as to whether her father had sexually abused her. According to the girl, they wouldn’t take "no" for an answer, and she falsely incriminated her father.

Based on the aggressive and zealous efforts of military FAP’s and others this case is worth following. 

Thanks to Howard Bashman at How Appealing, here is a link to United States v. Steen, a Fifth Circuit case involving a prosecution under 18 U. S. Code § 2251(a).

Alan Ray Steen appeals his jury conviction for one count of production of child pornography for video he surreptitiously recorded in a tanning salon, while the subject of the video was unaware of the filming…. As we will explain, Steen did not violate the statute he was charged with offending. We therefore REVERSE Steen’s conviction.

Having had a couple of these types of cases I found this interesting.

It looks like some Blazier trailers are starting to come out:

United States v. Dollar:

We consider whether the preadmission of two drug testing reports violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.  In light of United States v. Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (Blazier II), we find error under the Confrontation Clause and remand to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) for consideration of whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Military.com reports:

The Air Force has started drug testing airmen for synthetic forms of marijuana this week, making it the first service to announce such screening.

What actually they will be testing for is clear.  But it’s not spice, which is actually salvia divornium; that can’t be tested for currently.  Other drugs incorrectly called “spice” can be.  These misnamed new drugs are manufactured and can be tested for; essentially you have a form of marijuana.  I’m wondering if the lack of specificity and the confusing over what is spice or isn’t may be way to litigate these cases.