Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogShawn Boyne, Pre-Trial Procedures in Criminal Cases.
Prof. Boyne (Indiana U., Robert H. McKinney Sch. of Law), has an interesting read.
Does this seem familiar?
Articles Posted in Worth the Read
Dances of Justice: Tango and Rumba in Comparative Criminal Procedure
Elisabetta Grande (2009) “Dances of Justice: Tango and Rumba in Comparative Criminal Procedure,”
Global Jurist: Vol. 9: Iss. 4 (Frontiers), Article 6.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/gj/vol9/iss4/art6
Worth-the-Read
Rossmo, Kim and Pollock, Joycelyn, Confirmation Bias and Other Systemic Causes of Wrongful Convictions: A Sentinel Events Perspective (June 28, 2019). Northeastern University Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2019. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3413922.
Tokson, Matthew J., The Emerging Principles of Fourth Amendment Privacy (July 23, 2019). George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3425321
Wexler, Rebecca, Evidence in the Age of Privacy: Access to Data in the Criminal Justice System (July 29, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3428607 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3428607
Upon taking command
Going through some old files I came across the
Excerpts from a letter which the Powell Committee recommended The Judge Advocate General of the Army send to officers newly appointed as general court-martial convening authorities. (Committee on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Good Order and Discipline in the Army: Report to Honorable Wilber M. Bruckner, Secretary to the Army, 17–21 (18 Jan 1960)).
Should the TJAGs also send a “letter to self?”
Confirmation Bias and Other Systemic Causes of Wrongful Convictions
Confirmation Bias and Other Systemic Causes of Wrongful Convictions: A Sentinel Events Perspective,
By D. Kim Rossmo and Joycelyn M. Pollock.
Their study suggests that 37% of wrongful convictions result from confirmation bias.
DC–you have to police the prosecutors, they won’t police themselves.
Once again it is the duty of the defense counsel to police the prosecutors not for the prosecutors to police themselves. That is one of the conclusions from the new decision—United States v. Voorhees,
https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2018OctTerm/180372.pdf,
just decided by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
SORNA
Prof. Doug Berman of Sentencing Law & Policy brings this tidbit about SOR in Alaska.
[T]he Alaska Supreme Court in Doe v. Alaska Department of Public Safety, No. 7375 (Alaska June 14, 2019) decided that part of its state’s Sexual Offender Registration Act violates due process. Here is how the majority opinion starts and concludes:
This appeal presentstwo questions concerning theAlaska SexualOffender Registration Act (ASORA). The first is whether ASORA’s registration requirements may be imposed on sex offenders who have moved to the state of Alaska after committing sex offenses elsewhere. The second is whether ASOR Aviolates due process by requiring all sex offenders to register without providing a procedure for them to establish that they do not represent a threat to the public. We conclude that ASORA’s registration requirements can constitutionally be applied to out-of-state offenders. We also conclude that ASORA violates due process, but its defect may be cured by providing a procedure for offenders to establish their non-dangerousness….
Nullification of PTC credit
An accused in pretrial confinement awaiting trial receives day for day credit toward any sentence to confinement. In the old days, we referred to that as “Allen credit.”
Note, an accused may not automatically get credit for time spent in civilian jail–that needs to be litigated at trial. See United States v. Harris, __ M.J. ___, 2019 CAAF LEXIS 361 (C.A.A.F. 2019).
Which brings us to United States v. Howell, NMCCA, 2019. On appeal, Howell argued that the prosecution wrongly argued to nullify his pretrial confinement credit.
Noteworthy Supreme Court petition
Friend and colleague draws attention to McGee v. McFadden, a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U. S. Supreme Court.
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred when it found no constitutional error when the state failed to disclose Brady evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch, until the post-trial hearing for a motion for a new trial; (2) whether the state and federal courts’ decisions were contrary to Giglio v. United States, United States v. Bagley, Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois when the state failed to disclose material impeachment evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch who testified that petitioner confessed to him; and (3) whether the state and federal courts erred in finding that trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel when he failed to interview Michael Jones and call him as a witness.
More information, including the petition at SCOTUSBlog here.
Worth the Read
A case to look out for.
United States v. Frost, No. 18-0362/AR
Issue: Whether the military judge erred in admitting hearsay statements as prior consistent statements under Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) where the defense theory posited the improper influence or motive preceded the allegedly consistent statements.