scotus Tag Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

SCOTUSBlog observes

September 29, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Along with the list of cert. grants, the Court announced a new policy on releasing audio recordings of oral arguments. The Court will now release such recordings at the end of each argument week, much earlier than the current practice for all but a handful of particularly high-profile cases. As Lyle Denniston reports for SCOTUSblog, the same-day release of high-profile argument recordings will be discontinued under the new policy. The Washington Post, the Blog of LegalTimes, NPR’s The Two-Way blog, Broadcasting & Cable, the Associated Press (via the Washington Post), and Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy all take note of the policy change. While C-SPAN’s president is not completely satisfied with the shift, the Volokh Conspiracy’s Orin Kerr is “delighted” that “Supreme Court geeks” will be able to more readily recognize “the flavor and tone of the questions.”

Another potential SCOTUS grant

September 28, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The U. S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Kentucky v. King.

QUESTION PRESENTED:
Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated from one of the doors, which prompted the officers to believe the trafficker had fled into that apartment. The officers knocked on the door. They then heard noises which indicated that physical evidence was being destroyed. The officers entered the
apartment and found large quantities of drugs. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that this evidence should have been suppressed, ruling that (1) the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the officers created the exigency by knocking on the door, and (2) the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the suspect was not aware he was being pursued. The two questions presented are: 1. When does lawful police action impermissibly "create" exigent circumstances which preclude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by the United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist? 2. ~~Does the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement apply only~~

Thanks to crimeandconsequences.

CAAF opens up

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here are some interesting tidbits from the CAAF orientation session for new attorneys courtesy of NIMJ.blog.

As for the rules changes, a big (and quite welcome, in my opinion) change is the new system in which nearly all CAAF pleadings are eligible for electronic filing. Be sure to redact privacy/sensitive information from such filings, as final briefs will be placed on CAAF’s webpage, starting this term.

Other changes make the already small needle’s eye to SCOTUS more microscopic for military appeals. While CAAF judges previously granted review of all appeals in which the appellant was serving 30 years or more in confinement, that is no longer the policy. Furthermore, for cases that come back to CAAF after a remand to the CCAs, CAAF will no longer automatically grant review of the case.