As an SVC in Colorado Springs, Colo., former prosecutor Capt. Lorraine Sult says that she has found her clients’ needs are different from what she previously recognized. Some would rather have their attackers go to counseling than get jail time, for example.
"As prosecutors (and politicians), we think they just want the conviction," she says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2013/0717/Sexual-assault-in-the-military-Can-special-counsels-for-victims-help
We all know judges who actually or appear to put their thumb on the scales. In this modern age it’s perhaps more likely to be the key of that smartphone. . .
A former prosecutor who is now a Texas judge has admitted in a letter that she aided another judge who, it is claimed, sent texts during a 2012 trial in an effort to help the state with its case.
Prof. Colin Miller asks, and then gives.
The recent opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Dingman v. Cart Shield USA, LLC, 2013 WL 3353835 (S.D.Fla. 2013), addresses three interesting questions under Federal Rule of Evidence 609: (1) are convictions resulting from nolo contendere pleas potentially admissible under Rule 609; (2) is a conviction for failure to register as a sex offender a crime of dishonesty or false statement under Rule 609(a)(2); (3) and should a conviction for failure to register as a sex offender be admissible under Rule 609(a)(1)?
If a witness fails to object? What if the witness has discussed all with the prosecutor? Anyway . . .
Fourth Circuit concluded it did not need to determine the scope of the psychotherapist-patient privilege since the respondent had waived any privilege; circuit notes the obligation "to timely assert the psychotherapist—patient privilege," United States v. Bolander, _ F.3d _ (4th Cir. July 5, 2013) (No. 12-6146)
An outspoken congressman says he is troubled by allegations the Marine Corps commandant and his legal advisers manipulated criminal cases stemming from a vulgar war-zone video.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130708/NEWS05/307080023
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/osjcl/issues-and-articles/volume-102/
Federal Evidence Review is one of many websites I review on a regular basis. The blog has, “noted how the lower courts continue to grapple with the application of the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony based on the lack of clarity from recent Supreme Court cases. See, e.g., Confrontation Clause: Continuing Uncertainty For Expert Testimony Following Williams v. Illinois.”
Based on recent Supreme Court cases involving expert testimony under the Confrontation Clause, the Soto case provides some useful guidance. First, reexamination or "second analysis" testimony should be permitted where the second examiner conducts an independent review of the evidence and testifies about his or her independent conclusions. Second, to avoid challenges of impermissible bolstering, the second examiner should minimize reference to the conclusions of the first examiner. Any testimony about testimonial statements of the non-testifying first examiner may be subject to challenge under the Confrontation Clause.
The author discusses United States v. Soto, (1st Cir. 2013). Justice Souter is a member of the panel, although he did not write the opinion.
Yes is the simple answer.
The harder answer is why, and how do you tell.
As I always say, the first question to consider is motive. If you have a motive, a lot must follow to corroborate the motive. Here is an article from the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin about, False Allegations of Adult Crimes.
Prof Colin TG Miller has this post.
In Crane v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court found that:
"[w]hether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense."
BAH/TAD fraud cases cane be complex for a lot of different reasons. But here is a reminder of one aspect from the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals in, United States v. Peters. This is actually a common mistake by the prosecution when charging fake receipts, and when charging for multiple acts that are performed when submitting a claim.
We are troubled by some of the specifications of false official statements and by the specifications of forgery. We merge two of the specifications of false official statements, set aside the findings on forgery, and affirm the approved sentence.
We take judicial notice that the computer process of electronically submitting a DD Form 1351-2 ends with a final computer entry that is considered an electronic signature. For each claim, Appellant made a single statement when he made the final entry.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
