Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

I object, so let’s discuss that with the members

August 26, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Ooops.

When you object to something you are asking that the members not hear a piece of testimony or see a piece of evidence–right? Right?

So why then do you let the Trial Counsel (or defense counsel) discuss that with the military judge in front of the members? I see this on a regular basis as I read records of trial–I’m reading one now where there was three pages worth of discussion in front of the members. Yes it’s a hassle to excuse the members and the witness while you have a discussion about admissibility.

Note of SOR

August 18, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

From Prof. Doug Berman’s excellent Sentencing Law & Policy.

Four+ years ago as noted in this post, the US Supreme Court issued a short per curiam summary reversals in Grady v. North Carolina, No. 14-593 (S. Ct. March 30, 2015) (available here), in which the Court clarified and confirmed that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to sex offender monitoring. That case was remanded back to the state courts, and late last week there was a major ruling by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in North Carolina v. Grady, No. 179A14-3 (N.C. Aug 16, 2019) (available here). This split ruling establishes that persons other than Torrey Grady will benefit from the application of the Fourth Amendment in this setting.

Fourth Amendment happenings

August 18, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

A couple of interesting items from John Wesley Hall’s excellent Fourth Amendment blog.

Without something to go on, the court declines to ascribe a supposed error in an address as a mere typo. Moreover, the affidavit fails to provide any nexus to defendant and the place to be searched, and the good faith exception is inapplicable. The court even finds the issuing judge failed to perform his or her judicial function in evaluating the affidavit. Andrews v. District of Columbia, 2019 D.C. App. LEXIS 336 (Aug. 15, 2019):

(1) The probable cause here was thin, and it was based on a CI’s credibility. The officer omitted important information to the CI’s credibility. This entitles him to at least a Franks hearing on remand. (2) A photograph of the motel room during the search shows the time as 25 minutes before the search warrant was issued. Whether the motel room clock was correct or not is a matter of speculation in light of the testimony, which the court credits instead. [What person has stayed in a hotel room where the clock was always correct? Nobody.] United States v. Clark, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24332 (7th Cir. Aug. 15, 2019).

Worth-the-Read

August 18, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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

July 31, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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?”

Don Rehkopf as a reminder to defense counsel

July 24, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is something from good friend Don Rehkopf as a reminder to defense counsel.

1) For anyone representing a client with Art. 120, offenses that will trigger a Dismissal or DD upon conviction; or

2) Anyone representing a client where there may be a chance of being sentenced to a Dismissal or DD;

Confirmation Bias and Other Systemic Causes of Wrongful Convictions

July 22, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

Retirement after court-martial

July 10, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Defense counsel:

You have an enlisted client who is retirement eligible: E-6 to E-9. What is their retirement check, assuming they are in a position to retire after trial?

Before you answer, please read 10 U. S. C. 1407, especially para. (f).

DC–you have to police the prosecutors, they won’t police themselves.

June 28, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

Take that

June 27, 2019 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Maybe this trial counsel and his leadership aren’t so great? Will the AF allow him to remain in trial counsel duties?

As trial counsel tried to establish his bona fides with the court members during voir dire, he introduced himself as an attorney of considerable experience and gravitas:

I’m a senior trial counsel assigned to Peterson Air Force Base. In that capacity I travel around the world, between 200 and 250 days a year, prosecuting the Air Force’s most serious cases.