Federal Evidence Review has a good reminder that what may appear to be statements admissible as excited utterances may not in fact be so. Thus, defense as always your job is to ensure that the prosecution doesn’t get away with ritualistic or talismanic incantations of, “it’s an excited utterance (or some other exception)".”
United States v. Erickson, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. July 12, 2010).
In United States v. Eyster, decided by the 3rd Cir. on 14 July 2010, the appellant claimed he was improperly sentenced because the court considered a 1988 court-martial conviction for rape.
On appeal, Eyster argues that the District Court erred by increasing his criminal history from Category II to Category V, because his 1988 conviction under the UCMJ was not a qualifying prior "sex offense conviction" as defined by § 4B1.5.. . .
The Government concedes, and we agree, that Eyster’s 1988 conviction under the UCMJ was not a qualifying "sex offense conviction" for purposes of § 4B1.5. Therefore, Eyster’s advisory Guidelines range should have been calculated using criminal history Category II, not Category V. This was error[.]As explained, however, the applicable Guidelines range was the same—360 to 840 months—under either criminal history Category. Because this mistake did not result in the calculation of an incorrect Guidelines range, we conclude that it did not affect Eyster’s substantial rights.
Oh, For Goodness Sake blog is reporting that Orly Taitz is now assisting in LTC Lakin’s defense?
A posting at A Natural Born Citizen . . . Orly? appears to indicate that one of Orly Taitz’s blogs has been taken over – I think by aliens. Oh man what a pun. She does have some blather, but apparently repetitious of some of the events in the Lakin case.
Coast Guard reports indicates that:
Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore, commander of the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, has relieved Capt. Fredrick G. Myer from his duties as commander of U.S. Coast Guard Sector Portland, Ore., Friday, citing alleged misconduct due to a violation of military regulations, specifically unauthorized use of a government computer.
Specifically, Capt. Myer was found, during an investigation, to have repeatedly viewed pornographic and other restricted internet sites on a government computer.
Introducing evidence or refreshing recollection?
TC: May I approach the witness?
MJ: Yes.
A constant frustration – how to impeach (and typically with the book is sitting there on counsel table).
Complaining Witness: Blah, blah, blah.
Defense counsel: Now Ms. Complaining Witness you received an Article 15 . . . . (“Objection,” – “Sustained.” [DC looks at judge with a ‘what did I just do’ attitude.]).
I previously posted about an Army decision to rescind GOMR’s for several officers involved in the Wanat event. [Military to open new investigation into battle that killed nine soldiers, and here.] Here are links to a two parter by Tom Ricks on Wanat in Foreign Policy:
The families respond I
Several relatives of soldiers killed at the battle of Wanat on July 13, 2008, have contacted me to express their unhappiness about the Army’s recent decision to rescind letters of reprimand to officer who oversaw that fight.
From on the road.
Marine Corps Times has this survey.
Does “drop and give me 20” cut it? Or does he warrant a tougher punishment — maybe standing at parade rest for hours at a time, or spending all night cleaning the barracks? Or would that be considered hazing?
Your client is charged with burglary, theft, and false official statement. You call a good Sailor witness. The witness testifies. Imagine the questions I asked in MJ Summer Camp I, or just as easily that there has been no prior impeachment cross-examination.
Trial counsel: LTC Witness, does a good Sailor commit burglary? No.
Trial counsel: LTC Witness, does a good Sailor commit theft? No.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog