members Tag Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

The Members sieve

October 23, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Leaks from Members (or sometimes military judges) occasionally give rise to appellate litigation.

Here is an interesting piece on federal evidence review:

Motion for new trial on criminal extortion and bribery case denied, despite juror’s statement to newspaper after the verdict that because the defendants did not testify, the juror reasoned that "[if] they were innocent, they would have testified.’”; since members of the jury did not learn of the defendant’s failure to testify through improper channels, the evidence of their discussions was not admissible under FRE 606(b) as it was not an extrinsic influence, inUnited States v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2006) (Nos. 05-1361, 05-1435)

Humor in uniform lawyering

May 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The accused is charged with indecent assault on a complaining witness and rape on another complaining witness.

Member: Sir I’m the unit victim advocate. Individual voir dire continues blah, blah, blah.

Def: The defense objects on implied bias and liberal grant mandate.

NMCCA opinion

April 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

NMCCA has decided United States v. Oglesby.

The issue was prosecution sentencing evidence of other acts toward the victim which had not been charged. Appellant alleged that the military judge failed to conduct a proper 1001 and Mil. R. Evid. 403 balancing test. NMCCA disagreed.

NMCCA found that the military judge properly evaluated the evidence as to its admissibility, including a 403 balancing. The court further found that the military judge correctly gave a limiting instruction to the members on how they could use the additional evidence.

I object – some reminders

January 2, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Prof. Collin Miller has this item on his blog which is an excellent reminder about objections – an issue for the defense much more than prosecution.

You’ve seen it a million times in legal movies and TV shows. A lawyer asks a witness a question, opposing counsel stands up and exclaims, "Objection, your Honor," and the judge overrules (or sustains) the objection. Like many other aspects of legal movies and TV shows, this is not the way that things are usually done in courtrooms across the country. If an attorney merely stood up and said, "Objection," in response to a question without stating the grounds for that objection, that attorney would not have preserved the issue for appellate review. Indeed, as the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in State v. Reyes, 2009 WL 4730822 (R.I. 2009), makes clear, even if an attorney does state a ground for his objection, but it is the wrong ground, he has not preserved the issue for appellate review.

Mil. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) requires that when making a motion counsel at court-martial, “[state] the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context[.]”