This document provides a summary of topics covered at a criminal law conference from 1-4 November 2010 presented by MAJ Mason Weiss. It discusses recent case law developments pertaining to crimes and defenses, evidence, findings and sentencing, self-incrimination, search and seizure, and pleas and pre-trial agreements. Numerous military court cases are summarized across these topics, with highlights including limitations on what can constitute solicitation and larceny offenses, standards for admitting evidence under Military Rules of Evidence, requirements for specifying findings of guilty, and limits on questioning service members for law enforcement purposes without Miranda warnings.
Federal court, excluding police report, Darren Chaker, provides law on keeping a police report away from the jury in a criminal case, which is important since are usually hearsay and unreliable.
Federal court, excluding police report, Darren Chaker, provides law on keeping a police report away from the jury in a criminal case, which is important since are usually hearsay and unreliable.
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!
Federal court order from Nevada, Fourth Amendment issues, detailing illegal detention. Darren Chaker, writes frequently on such issues and was provided the order to help educate people on rights and judicial cases impacting every day life.
TO KNOW THERE IS INJUSTICE AND BE SILENT, IS INJSUTICE; PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR MISCONDUCT, WILLIE GENE WOODARD, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, KEVIN RAPP, MONICA KLAPPER, JUDGE ROSENBLATT, DAVID LOCKHART, WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS, POLICE MISCONDUCT, FBI, U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, FEDERAL JUDGE, SUPREME COURT, INJUSTICE, WILL G. WOODARD, THE STAND, REDEMPTION STAND, BOUNCING FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP, IN JESUS NAME, ROBERT MARGOLIS, AMEN.
Relevancy of evidence under section 14, 15, 16 of Evidence Act 1950 (2017-2018)Intan Muhammad
P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!
Part 1Provide an example (in the form of a scenario) of individual.docxdunnramage
Part 1
Provide an example (in the form of a scenario) of individualized justice in which the victim is the
community
.
Provide an example (in the form of a scenario) of individualized justice in which the victim is an
individual
.
For each example, provide an appropriate sanction. Justify your answer.
Part 2
Your instructor will provide you with the defendant scenario in preparation for the Key Assignment. What state probation program will you apply to this scenario?
The following is the scenario:
Name:
John E. Orchids
DOB:
December 1, 1995
Race:
Caucasian
Juvenile record:
First misdemeanor at age of 12 for public nuisance
Second misdemeanor for truancy
NOTE:
Juvenile records are protected by the court and detailed information is not available.
Probation/Parole History:
None
Official version of the offense:
Orchids was detained for loitering. When he was searched, the officer found in his possession 1/6 of 1 ounce of a substance identified as marijuana. Possession of any unauthorized drug is a felony offense.
Plea bargain:
Council for the defendant is proposing a presentence intervention program (PSIP) of which the arraignment and hearing be transferred to a drug court.
Custody status:
Defendant has been released to the custody of the parents with an enforced curfew.
Extralegal information:
Gang affiliation:
The defendant has no known gang affiliations or organized crime participation. However, he has been counseled for carrying a concealed weapon on one occasion.
Background and ties to the community:
It has been reported that the defendant has been a regular attendee at the local church and participated in several church-sponsored programs to improve the community. He was also an active member of a scouts program through age 16.
Substance abuse history:
This is the first incident offense where an illegal substance was identified. It is pending further interviews with the defendant to determine if there is or is not a substance abuse history.
Physical health:
The defendant is a healthy Caucasian male with no visible scars or tattoos. There are no visible or obvious physical defects noted.
Mental health:
The defendant related that he comes from a loving and supportive family background with a normal childhood and no traumatic incidents he can recall. The defendant has expressed remorse for the problems he has caused his mother in the past and the expense of hiring an attorney.
Financial circumstances:
The defendant resides with parents and has no visible means of self-support.
Employment history:
The defendant has stated he has had summer employment and was allowed to keep what he had earned. He also had received money from relatives and family on his birthday and special occasions but was not allowed to work while attending school.
Education history:
The defendant is a senior and projected to graduate, pending the outcome of this case, in May 2014. The defendant has planned to attend college in the fall of 2014.
Victim impa.
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!
Federal court order from Nevada, Fourth Amendment issues, detailing illegal detention. Darren Chaker, writes frequently on such issues and was provided the order to help educate people on rights and judicial cases impacting every day life.
TO KNOW THERE IS INJUSTICE AND BE SILENT, IS INJSUTICE; PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR MISCONDUCT, WILLIE GENE WOODARD, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, KEVIN RAPP, MONICA KLAPPER, JUDGE ROSENBLATT, DAVID LOCKHART, WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS, POLICE MISCONDUCT, FBI, U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, FEDERAL JUDGE, SUPREME COURT, INJUSTICE, WILL G. WOODARD, THE STAND, REDEMPTION STAND, BOUNCING FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP, IN JESUS NAME, ROBERT MARGOLIS, AMEN.
Relevancy of evidence under section 14, 15, 16 of Evidence Act 1950 (2017-2018)Intan Muhammad
P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!
Part 1Provide an example (in the form of a scenario) of individual.docxdunnramage
Part 1
Provide an example (in the form of a scenario) of individualized justice in which the victim is the
community
.
Provide an example (in the form of a scenario) of individualized justice in which the victim is an
individual
.
For each example, provide an appropriate sanction. Justify your answer.
Part 2
Your instructor will provide you with the defendant scenario in preparation for the Key Assignment. What state probation program will you apply to this scenario?
The following is the scenario:
Name:
John E. Orchids
DOB:
December 1, 1995
Race:
Caucasian
Juvenile record:
First misdemeanor at age of 12 for public nuisance
Second misdemeanor for truancy
NOTE:
Juvenile records are protected by the court and detailed information is not available.
Probation/Parole History:
None
Official version of the offense:
Orchids was detained for loitering. When he was searched, the officer found in his possession 1/6 of 1 ounce of a substance identified as marijuana. Possession of any unauthorized drug is a felony offense.
Plea bargain:
Council for the defendant is proposing a presentence intervention program (PSIP) of which the arraignment and hearing be transferred to a drug court.
Custody status:
Defendant has been released to the custody of the parents with an enforced curfew.
Extralegal information:
Gang affiliation:
The defendant has no known gang affiliations or organized crime participation. However, he has been counseled for carrying a concealed weapon on one occasion.
Background and ties to the community:
It has been reported that the defendant has been a regular attendee at the local church and participated in several church-sponsored programs to improve the community. He was also an active member of a scouts program through age 16.
Substance abuse history:
This is the first incident offense where an illegal substance was identified. It is pending further interviews with the defendant to determine if there is or is not a substance abuse history.
Physical health:
The defendant is a healthy Caucasian male with no visible scars or tattoos. There are no visible or obvious physical defects noted.
Mental health:
The defendant related that he comes from a loving and supportive family background with a normal childhood and no traumatic incidents he can recall. The defendant has expressed remorse for the problems he has caused his mother in the past and the expense of hiring an attorney.
Financial circumstances:
The defendant resides with parents and has no visible means of self-support.
Employment history:
The defendant has stated he has had summer employment and was allowed to keep what he had earned. He also had received money from relatives and family on his birthday and special occasions but was not allowed to work while attending school.
Education history:
The defendant is a senior and projected to graduate, pending the outcome of this case, in May 2014. The defendant has planned to attend college in the fall of 2014.
Victim impa.
First, I need the outline, which is due tomorrow, Wednesday the 31.docxvoversbyobersby
First, I need the outline, which is due tomorrow, Wednesday the 31st CST.
Then the Key Assignment, which is due this Sunday, August 4th.
NEED TO FOLLOW AN OUTLINE FORMAT THAT IS SHOWN IN WORD (MICROSOFT WORD PROGRAM HAS SEVERAL OUTLINE TEMPLATES.)
Based on the following information, create a detailed outline for the Key Assignment
DO NOT MERELY REWRITE THE QUESTIONS IN OUTLINE FORM. Also, do not simply outline the assignment scenario. APA Format.
Key Assignment
Scenario: While working an undercover detail in a neighborhood known for drug activity, you notice a vehicle stopped at the intersection waiting for the light to change. The man in the vehicle makes eye contact with you. You approach his vehicle and begin carrying on a conversation with him. You ask him if he needs anything, and he responds by asking you, “What do you have?” You ask him what he is looking for, and he tells you he is looking to score. You show him a small bag containing a white powdery substance; he asks how much, and you respond, "20 dollars." He hands you a $20 bill, and you give him the bag and tip your hat to signal that the transaction was completed. At this time, the man drives off and is stopped a block away by a marked unit. The individual is placed under arrest for drug possession and purchasing drugs, and he is taken to jail.
The individual is charged with possession of a controlled substance. At his trial, he claimed that he was a victim of entrapment by the police. He was found guilty and sentenced to serve 5 years in jail and given credit for the 3 months he already had served in jail.
Assignment Guidelines
•Address the following in 1,250–1,500 words:
•Research and provide 2–3 case briefs on specific case law related to the entrapment defense as it may or may not apply in the case scenario. ◦Your case briefs should follow this format:
◾Title: Title of the selected case
◾Facts: Summary of the events, court timeline, evidence, and so forth
◾Issues: Issues that were present in this case
◾Decisions: The court's decision and the conclusion to the case
◾Reasoning: The rationale behind the final decision
◾Dissenting opinions: Any dissenting opinions, and an explanation of what they were and why they were raised
Answer the following questions:
◦Did you have probable cause to approach the defendant while he was parked at the traffic light? Why or why not? Defend your answer.
◦Do you feel that the entrapment defense is a valid one, considering the assignment scenario? Why or why not? Defend your answer.
◦Is providing the opportunity for someone to commit a crime the same as entrapment? Why or why not?
◦If the substance were marijuana, how much would be needed for a misdemeanor charge? A felony?
•Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.
Need outline checked, revised, & finished. I have started the outline, but have not finished it.
(TITLE OF OUTLINE) ENTRAPMENT
I. Introduction: Entrapment is when law enforcement office ...
100 words agree or disagree to eac questions Q 1.As her .docxtamicawaysmith
100 words agree or disagree to eac questions
Q 1.
As her defense attorney, I will argue that the officer did not only not read Sally's Miranda rights; he also did not respect her right to consul. After Sally made her allegedly verbal utterance, the Officer should have known to read Sally her rights. I will bring up that during New Jersey v. James P. Kucinski, Oct 26, 2016, the defendant was arrested for the bludgeoning death of his brother. The defendant was taken to police headquarters for questioning after the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights; he requested an attorney. The law enforcement officers terminated the interrogation, spoked with their supervisor, and approximately eight minutes later, the officers returned into the room and advised the defendant that he was being charged with murder. The scare tactic worked, and the defendant asked to speak with the officers. The defendant reluctantly answered a series of questions. Before trial, the defendant moved for suppression motion because the officers did not honor his request for counsel. The court denied the motion, during further questioning the defendant claimed to have acted in self-defense, the defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion for mistrial but instructed the jury that the defendant's right to remain silent should be limited to assessing his credibility. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder and third-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes The Appellate Division reversed the defendant's conviction and motion for a new trial due to the prosecutor's question doing cross-examination was improper. The panel concluded that the defendant invoked his right to remain silent by telling law enforcement officers that he did not want to talk or answer questions. The Appellate Division found that the trial court instructions to the jury were flaws, and the supreme court agreed and affirmed. The officers should have stopped all questioning and contacted the defendant's attorney.
New Jersey v. Kucinski (2017). https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2017/a-58-15.html
Q 2.
My last name begins with a K. so I am answering in the role of prosecutor. Sally was originally pulled over because she had shown probable cause of drunk driving. Upon her traffic stop, Sally was then searched after being arrested and the handgun and drugs were found on her body. The police asked about the two items but did not “interrogate” her. Sally voluntarily answered the arresting officers’ questions and in doing so piled new charges onto her initial arrest charge. I believe that the judge will deny the request to suppress the admission of Sally’s statements. Sally does have rights under the Fifth Amendment, but her statements to the police officers were not coerced out of her. The Cornell Law School website states that the Fifth Amendment, under the self-incrimination clause, if an individual makes a spo.
FPSY 6520 Case Study Testimony Questions Final ProjectA = at.docxhanneloremccaffery
FPSY 6520: Case Study Testimony Questions: Final Project
A = attorney
A: Please state your full legal name for the record.
A: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: Please describe for the court your educational background.
A: How many times have you been an expert witness?
A: How much are you getting paid for your testimony today?
A: Did you review the evaluation on Mr. Bumble?
A: Why were you asked to review Mr. Bumble’s evaluation?
A: Can you identify risk factors associated with Mr. Bumble committing a violent crime?
A: What legal definition is applicable to the referral question that was assessed during the evaluation of Mr. Bumble?
A: What procedures and/or tests were performed during your evaluation?
A: What were the results of the evaluation?
A: Does the evaluation suggest that Mr. Bumble is competent/not competent to stand trial?
A: Can you describe Mr. Bumble’s diagnosis for the court?
A: Is that diagnosis considered to be a mental disease or defect?
A: Why or why not?
A: Do you believe Mr. Bumble understands the proceedings today?
A: Why or why not?
A: Do you think Mr. Bumble understands what he is charged with?
A: Why or why not?
A: Do you think Mr. Bumble can work with his attorney to successfully defend himself?
A: Why or why not?
A: Do you have any other information about Mr. Bumble that you feel would be helpful to the court?
A: Thank you. You may step down.
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Case Study: Final Project
FORENSIC EVALUATION
NAME: Bumble, III, Bee B. I.
REGISTER NUMBER: 7777
DOCKET NUMBER: 12345
DATE OF REPORT: May 1, 1091
REFERRAL INFORMATION: In an order dated April 14, 1091, the Honorable Billy I. Bob, States Magistrate Judge for the District of Neverland, requested an opinion as to whether Bee Bumble is competent to stand trial under the provisions of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 4241. A defendant can be found incompetent by a federal judge if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or is unable to assist properly in his own defense. This order allowed for a 30-day examination of the defendant which commenced with the arrival of the defendant at this facility. Orders, such as the present one, also request: (1) the defendant's history and present symptoms; (2) a description of the psychiatric, psychological, or medical tests that were employed, and their findings; and (3) the examiners' opinion as to the diagnosis and prognosis. This referral question is to be answered in regards to a criminal indictment alleging Murder of a state police ranger, in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1111 and 1114.
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION: Bee B. I. Bumble, III, is a 37-year-old, orange male from Mytown, Neverland. He has been detained at the states penitentiary in Atlantis, Ocean, since April 3, 1091. Mr. Bumble was informed ...
[Type text][Type text][Type text] 1Running Head Disci.docxhanneloremccaffery
[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
1
Running Head: Disciplinary Assignment
CJUS 520- Disciplinary Assignment
Jasonus Tillery
Liberty University
CJUS 520- Disciplinary Assignment-Part 1
The United States Supreme Court is the absolute highest court in the country. It generally hears cases that involve issues of federal law. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the federal and state courts (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013). When a case is referred to the Supreme Court, the decision that is derived is final because there is no other court to appeal to. Generally, when a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, it usually means that there were issues or controversy involved in the cases in the State or Federal Court. There are three cases that were tried at the Supreme Court level that are of particular interest to this class: Brady vs. Maryland (1963), Giglio vs. United States (1972), and United States vs. Agurs (1976). Each of these cases presented issues, which will be discussed below.
Brady vs. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
In the Brady vs. Maryland case, Brady the defendant and his companion were convicted of first-degree murder and were sentenced to death. During the trial, Brady admitted to being at the crime scene and participating in the crime, but he stated that his companion was the one who actually committed the murder. Brady’s attorney did not contest the fact that Brady was guilty, he or she only pleaded with the jury to not return with a capital punishment verdict. The defendant’s lawyer however, was not privy to the fact that Brady’s companion had admitted to murdering the victim alone. Prior to the start of the trial, the defendant’s attorney requested to see all the evidence that the prosecutors had in their possession. However, the prosecutors failed to disclose Brady’s companion’s confession. Brady’s attorney was not aware of the confession until after his client’s trial. At that point, Brady had already been convicted and sentenced (Hooper & Thorpe, 2007). The prosecutor is required by law to disclose to the defense any evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Failure to do so denies the defendant to due process of the law. Therefore, there had to be a new trial, but not to determine guilt, rather than to determine Brady’s punishment. Brady had already confessed to his participation in the crime, so the sentence of death was what had to be re-tried. Although many would disagree with the fact that the prosecutor has to disclose information favorable to the defendant, it is still the law. Therefore, violating this law results in a violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right.
Giglio vs. United States vs. 150 (1972)
In this case, the defendant Giglio was being prosecuted for forging $2300 in money orders, which at the time was a significant amount of money. The controversy in this case derived from the testimony of Giglio’s Co-conspirator Robert Tal.
Running head DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENTDISCIPLINARY ASSIGNME.docxtodd271
Running head: DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT
Prosecutorial Discretion and Retroactive Review
Part one
MEMORANDUM
To: Professor: Judge Scott W. Naus
From: Andrade Olliver II
Date: 5/23/ 2020
Subject: Prosecutorial Discretion and Retroactive Review
The United States judicial system is considered one of the best and most effective court systems in the world. Despite this, the U.S. prosecutors have been faced with series discriminations where they failed or violated various defendants' rights in one way or another. The significant issues in most of the cases include suppression of any favorable evidence to the defendant case, avoiding putting on stand witnesses who may support defendants, use of unreliable and consistent information, and other criminal discoveries that act against defendant constitutional rights (Green & Yaroshefsky, 2016).
Case Law I: Brandy V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
According to the jury, Charles Boblit and John Brady were found to be guilty of murder. However, Brandy went further to admit in the participation of robbery but did not kill anyone in the process. Later, after both sentenced for murder, it came to Brandy's attention that despite Boblit's confession to the murder, the prosecutor still went ahead to indict both of them to the same sentence. Due to this, the Maryland Court approved considering reviewing the extent of punishment that Brandy should have been charged earlier (Clafton, 2020).
With this, the case against Brandy the prosecution can be directly accused of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which describes the due process of any case on trial. The suppression of evidence indicted Brandy of a crime he did not commit, but it disqualified him from a fair trial.
Case Law II: Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
The court sentenced John Giglio guilty of forgery and passing fake money orders. It was during his appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeal where it was discovered that the prosecutor failed to avail the information of offering immunity to key a witness to the Giglio trial. Despite the discovery of this new evidence, Giglio was denied the retrial on the basis that the court could not find any final influence decision rested upon by the court (Green & Yaroshefsky, 2016). Though the retrial was denied, Giglio retrial should have been accepted on the grounds of the witness's credibility. Therefore, the testimony against Giglio could have been clouded by the judgment of crucial witnesses trying to save himself.
At the time of the trial, Giglio's cross-examination on witness could have been a great significance on his side and maybe swinging the entire case direction. Also, if the entire conviction was based on the witness testimony, it was right for Giglio to have retrial judging on the availability of the new evidence.
Case Law III: United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
In the case, United States V. Agurs, Agurs (prostitute) was found guilty of killing Sewell (c.
CRJ 550Legal Issues in Criminal Justice AdministrationCase B.docxannettsparrow
CRJ 550
Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration
Case Brief ExampleThis is an example of a well-written case brief. Note the compliance with the required format and how the student gets right to the important points in plain language. If legal terms are encounter which are not understood, chances are that other students will not understand them, so it is best not to use them unless defined within the brief.
Assignment sub-heading: Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
TITLE AND CITATION: Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501 (1984)
TYPE OF ACTION: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a lower court ruling that evidence should be suppressed as a result of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The state (Nix) sought to overturn the motion to suppress that was upheld by the U.S. District Court of Appeals.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On December 24, 1968, ten year old Pamela Powers was kidnapped from an Iowa YMCA and her body was later found in a ditch, which was within an extensive area that was being searched by volunteers and law enforcement. The defendant was observed “carrying a large bundle wrapped in a blanket…two legs in it and they were skinny and white.” Williams’ car, which contained clothing items belonging to the victim, was found the next day approximately 160 miles from the incident. Based on this information, an extensive search was started that extended from Des Moines to Davenport, Iowa.
Law enforcement obtained a warrant for Williams’ arrest, and he subsequently turned himself into the authorities in Davenport. Williams was arraigned and had obtained and spoken with an attorney. Des Moines police detectives agreed to transport Williams and not interview him during the drive between Davenport and Des Moines. During the drive, one of the detectives on the case began to speak to Williams regarding the need to find the child’s body before it snowed so that her parents could give her a proper, “Christian” burial. The detective did not ask Williams any specific questions during this conversation. At that point, Williams provided statements to the detectives that led them to the child’s body.
Williams was then tried in state court and was found guilty of first degree murder. Williams filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the body and all related evidence concerning the body’s location based on illegally obtained testimony. When the conviction was affirmed by the Iowa state Supreme Court, Williams sought relief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The U.S. District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Williams and determined that he was denied the right to counsel and his statements, which led to the child’s body, could not be introduced into evidence.
Williams was tried in state court a second time, without the use by the prosecution of the statements he had given to detectives. Prosecutors introduced evidence of the child’s body under the premise.
Part 11. What are the strengths and weaknesses of leaving the pr.docxssuser562afc1
Part 1
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of leaving the primary responsibility for police protection to local governments versus the federal or state government?
part 2
What is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?
What is the benefit of doing a neighborhood canvass after a crime is committed?
Name the five crime scene search patterns.
What are the benefits of documenting interrogations?
part 3
Chapter 2 OER
1.
What are the two primary classification of evidence used in criminal cases? Define them, and give an example of each type of evidence.
2.
What two tools can parties use to meet the burden of proof? Define both of the tools. Provide an example of each tool.
3.
What is meant by diversity of State Laws?
A. Name an example of diversity of state law provided in the book?
B. Pick an example of diversity of state law from the book. Do you agree with the state’s position? Why or why not?
Chapter 3 OER
1.
Brad was convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced to 5 years in prison in 2019. In 2020, the state legislature passed a law making possession of cocaine a misdemeanor.
Cliff was arrested for a misdemeanor assault when he tried to choke his wife during a domestic dispute in 2019. In 2020, the state passed a law making choking a felony. Cliff has not been tried or convicted of the assault.
A.
What type of law, prohibited by the Constitution, is relevant for consideration for Brad and Cliff?
B.
What is the definition of this law?
C.
Can Brad have his sentence reduced to a misdemeanor and be released from prison? Why or why not? Explain your answer in detail.
D.
Can the prosecutor charge Cliff with a felony? Why or why not. Explain your answer in detail.
part 4
Chapter 7 -
State v. Ellis
List all the actions taken by the resident assistants and the Central State Police Department officers
that invaded Ellis's Fourth Amendment right of privacy in his dorm room.
Explain why the court's interrogation of resident assistants' actions was consistent with reasonable Fourth Amendment searches but the police officers' actions were unreasonable. Do you agree? Defend your answer.
Interrogate Ellis's Fourth Amendment privacy ideal from his standpoint. Back up your answer.
As they relate to the special needs/privacy ideal, should it matter whether the resident assistants, campus police, or city police conducted the search? Defend your answer.
Chapter 8 -
Miranda v. Arizona
According to SCOTUS, what do the words "custody" and "interrogation" mean?
Why is custodial interrogation "inherently coercive," according to the majority?
Identify and explain the criteria for waiving the right against self-incrimination in custodial interrogation.
On what grounds do the dissenters disagree with the majority's decision? What interests are in conflict, according to the Court?
How do the majority and the dissent explain the balance of interests established by the Constitution?
Which is mo.
Similar to Weiss new developments 2010 opd (1) (20)
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...
Weiss new developments 2010 opd (1)
1. Artillery Strong!
Criminal Law New Developments
1-4 November 2010
MAJ Mason Weiss
.Crimes, Defenses & Pleadings .Arguments
.Evidence .Writs
.Findings and Sentencing .Jurisdiction
.Self-Incrimination .Unlawful Command
.Search & Seizure Influence
.Discovery and Production
.Pretrial Restraint/Speedy Trial
.Post-Trial Procedures
.6th Amendment
.Pleas/PTAs/Court Martial Personnel/Voir Dire/Challenges
2. Artillery Strong!
Criminal Law New Developments
1-4 November 2010
MAJ Mason Weiss
.Overview of Appellate Law
.Article 66 Review/Article 69 review/Article 62 appeals
.ACCA/CAAF/Supreme Court
.Published vs. Unpublished opinions
.Factual/Legal Sufficiency, Grostefon,
.P1/P2, Dubay hearings, Ginn factors,
.GAD/DAD
.Commissioners, Mac Squires
.Final Orders, etc.
3. Artillery Strong!
Crimes, Defenses & Pleadings
U.S. v. Sutton 68 M.J. 455 (CAAF 2010) [D-2]
Accused ultimately convicted of soliciting his 10 yr old
stepdaughter to engage in indecent liberties by paying her
$20 for lifting up her shirt and showing him her chest.
Issue: Can an accused be charged with soliciting a minor to
engage in indecent liberties when the victim and the person
solicited are one in the same?
Held: One cannot solicit a minor to be both the offender and
the victim. Charging this misconduct as a solicitation fails to
state a defense.
4. Artillery Strong!
Crimes, Defenses & Pleadings
U.S. v. Lubasky 68 M.J. 260 (CAAF 2010) [D-3]
CW4 Casualty Assistance Officer steals money from widow.
Issue: Can the unauthorized use of another person’s credit and
bank cards constitute larceny against the person (as opposed to
the financial institution?)
Held: Unauthorized use of credit cards ≠ larceny against the
individual, they are only against the bank. But unauthorized
uses of debit card and cash from bank acct. can = larceny
against account owner even though MCM suggests otherwise.
Failure to properly identify victim in a larceny spec creates
a fatal variance! MJ did not fix it by E&S = too bad!
5. Artillery Strong!
Crimes, Defenses & Pleadings
U.S. v. Bradley 68 M.J. 556 (ACCA 2010) [D-4]
Soldier distributes ecstasy. Charge sheet alleges drug was “a
Schedule I controlled substance.” Govt did not introduce any
evidence to establish the E is a controlled substance.
Issue: If drug is not identified in the statutory language of Article
112a—can charge sheet’s allegation that drug is a controlled
substance sustain a conviction when no other evidence exists
re: the controlled nature of the substance?
Held: Info on charge sheet ≠ evidence! Controlled nature of a
substance = an essential element & some evidence must be
entered to sustain a conviction! Because none was entered,
findings set aside! [MJ could have taken notice but didn’t!]
6. Artillery Strong!
Evidence
U.S. v. Yammine 69 M.J. 70 (ACCA 2010) [E-4]
Marine Drill Instructor charged with forcible sodomy of 14 y/o
boy in the library bathroom. Govt introduces MRE 414 evidence
of deleted file names indicating child porn was on his computer
—but no images.
Issue: Did MJ err admitting unassociated file names suggesting
gay sex acts with pre-teen and teen boys under 414 or 404b?
Held: Yes. File names ≠ proper propensity evidence under MRE
414 nor any purpose under 404b! Possession or attempted
possession of child porn ≠ MRE 414 b/c appellant himself was
not physically present with the children depicted (not pics
anyway!). 404b ≠ propensity! Unfair prejudice/probative value!
7. Artillery Strong!
Findings & Sentence
U.S. v. Trew 68 M.J. 364 (CAAF 2010) [F-2]
MJ convicts appellant of 1 spec of ABC on child under 16 as an
LIO of the alleged indecent acts specifications. Appellant had
wrongfully touched his stepdaughter on at least two occasions.
MJ did not clarify the date of the occasion which he convicted
him of—just said it was for the “one occasion.”
Issue: Was MJ’s clarification following his announcement of
sentence ambiguous?
Held: Yes! Charges dismissed with prejudice by CAAF! The
NMCCA cannot properly review factual sufficiency of a case if it
can’t be sure which spec it’s reviewing! MJ should have
specified which occasion he convicted appellant of!
8. Artillery Strong!
Findings & Sentence
U.S. v. Saxman 69 M.J. 364 (N.M.C.C.A 2010) [F-5]
Appellant charged with possessing 22 videos of child porn, 4 of
which had confirmed children in them. MJ failed to instruct
members that if they convicted appellant of possessing less than
all 22, they had to specify which ones. Panel convicts appellant
of possessing 4, but does not specify which 4.
Issue: Whether a finding by E&S that appellant possessed only 4
videos instead of 22 can be properly reviewed under Art. 66?
Held: No! “Without knowing of which 18 videos the appellant
stands acquitted, we cannot now affirm a conviction for any
video without creating a risk that doing so will overturn the
members’ not guilty findings.” Dismissed with Prejudice!
9. Artillery Strong!
Findings & Sentence
U.S. v. Eslinger 69 M.J. 522 (ACCA 2010) [F-7]
Appellant was a highly decorated combat veteran who was a
HALO qualified Special Forces Medic with 18 yrs of service.
Convicted of possessing 1,700 images of child porn.
Issue: Whether govt rebuttal witnesses in sentencing provided
proper testimony?
1. Δ puts on aggressive sentencing case with several witnesses
giving strong evidence for retention. MSG and CPT say they
want to bring him on next deployment & already have his bags
packed to go.
2. Govt calls 5 rebuttal witnesses: MAJ, SGM, MSG, COL &
CSM. 4/5 have little to no knowledge of appellant!
10. Artillery Strong!
Findings & Sentence
U.S. v. Eslinger 69 M.J. 522 (ACCA 2010) [F-7]
3. All 5 Govt witnesses say they would not want to deploy with
him and that there is no place for him in the Army.
4. Govt witnesses answer questions about the basis of their
opinions, talk about his prior misconduct, and no reference to
their personal knowledge or interaction with him.
5. Defense only objects that 1 of the govt witnesses was
cumulative.
ACCA says:
-Remember RCM 1001(b)
-U.S. v. Ohrt: need foundation, no euphemisms for discharge!
-U.S. v. Horner: opinion cannot be based solely on severity of
offense.
-U.S. v. Griggs: allows for Δ retention evidence and govt rebuttal
11. Artillery Strong!
Findings & Sentence
U.S. v. Eslinger 69 M.J. 522 (ACCA 2010) [F-7]
ACCA says:
1. Govt witnesses had little to no foundation! Cannot use
rebuttal witnesses if they don’t know the guy!
2. UCI: one witness kept talking about what BN CDR wanted.
3. Repeated impermissible practice of asking witnesses to
explain the basis of their opinions! [can only do this on X-exam
or redirect].
4. Rebuttal testimony outside parameters of Griggs: cannot say
Soldier does not belong in the Army! Difference between willing
to serve with him again vs. calling for a punitive discharge.
Holding: Clear and obvious error—but no prejudice [plain error
standard!]. CAAF has granted review.
12. Artillery Strong!
Self Incrimination
Maryland v. Shatzer 130 S.Ct. 1213(2010) [G-2]
Δ in prison for unrelated sex offense when investigators
questioned him about molesting his son. He asks for a lawyer.
2.5 years later, police discover new evidence, visit him in a new
prison, and question him again. This time, he waives his rights
and admits. Δ then makes an motion to suppress for Edwards
violation since he had invoked right to counsel 2.5 years before.
Issue: Does the protection by Edwards have a temporal time
limit? Does post-conviction incarceration count as custody for
Miranda/Edwards purposes?
Holding: Sup Ct announces 14 day time limit. Post-conviction
incarceration does not count as custody for Edwards purposes.
13. Artillery Strong!
Self Incrimination
U.S. v. Kirk (ACCA July 28, 2010) [G-7]
Article 62 appeal by govt at Fort Sill. Accused was charged with
desertion. MJ decided to suppress statements that accused
made to 1SG when getting in-processed back into the unit and
accused said he didn’t get married because he was afraid he’d
get caught for being AWOL if he did so.
Issue: Did MJ err by ruling that accused’s statement to 1SG was
inadmissible due to lack of Article 31 warnings?
Holding: Yes. 1SG wasn’t acting in law enforcement or
disciplinary capacity. Routine administrative question to
inprocess accused was not likely to elicit an incriminating
response!
14. Artillery Strong!
Search & Seizure
U.S. v. King 604 F3d 125 (3rd Circ. 2010) [H-8]
Appellant meets Ms. Larkin on child porn website & they trade
child porn. A moves in and begins sexually molesting Larkin’s
daughter, Peanut. Police track them down because of an
unrelated child porn investigation on Peanut. When police get
there to arrest Larkin, she gives her consent to seize her
computer. A shows police where the computer is but tells police
they cannot take the hard drive because he owns it. Police take
it anyway. Search shows child porn on it.
Issue: Whether the holding of Georgia v. Randolph that a
present and objecting resident can override another resident’s
consent to search a home applies to the seizure of a computer.
Holding: No. Randolph rule doesn’t apply to personal property.
15. Artillery Strong!
Search & Seizure
(Inspections)
U.S. v. Ayala 69 M.J. 63 (CAAF 2010) [H-15]
SJA proposes policy that if you piss hot you will get retested.
Patent reason is to help in criminal prosecutions. Wing CDR
adopts proposal, but states a different purpose in his
implementing memorandum—fitness, security, and GO&D.
Ayala tests + for the marijuana on a random UA & tested
positive on subsequent UAs for marijuana & cocaine.
Subsequent UAs were part of a re-inspection policy.
Issue: Whether a follow-up urinalysis after a positive UA was a
lawful inspection under MRE 313?
Holding: Yes, based on the facts of this case. Ct will not impute
to the CDR every instance of advice or expression by his SJA.
16. Pleas, PTAs, Court-Martial Personnel
Panel Selection, Voir Dire, Challenges
U.S. v. Flores __ MJ__ (AFCCA 2010) [M-8]
Guard at Camp Bucca had a sex with Iraqi detainee. Also gave
him a video camera to film things. Mixed plea/JA Video related
to contested charges. During closing, TC argues that accused
corroborated video by her providence inquiry testimony.
Issue: Can the TC argue in the findings portion of contested
case about what the accused said during her providence
inquiry?
Holding: No! Can’t use GP to prove offenses to which the
accused pled NG, unless accused has pled NG to an LIO and
the greater offense has common elements. (no plain error).
Artillery Strong!
17. Pleas, PTAs, Court-Martial Personnel
Panel Selection, Voir Dire, Challenges
U.S. v. Morton 69 MJ 12 (CAAF 2010) [M-9]
Death of the closely related offense doctrine. Appellate courts
used to be able to affirm a finding of guilty to a closely related
offense that the govt had not charged. Morton pled guilty to 2
forgery specs of a sick call slip. Service-ct found plea inquiry
insufficient & instead affirmed for False Official Statement.
Holding: CAAF unanimously reverses. Affirming a GP based on
admissions to an offense to which an accused has not pleaded
guilty and which is not an LIO violates due process & fair notice.
The “closely related offense” doctrine does not exist in the text of
the UCMJ or the MCM. Not supported by any congressional act
or presidential authority. Just a creation of case-law
Artillery Strong!
18. Pleas, PTAs, Court-Martial Personnel
Panel Selection, Voir Dire, Challenges
U.S. v. Morton 69 MJ 12 (CAAF 2010) [M-10]
Practice Points:
1.With Govt & MJ consent, an accused may knowingly and
voluntarily plead to an amended spec, even if the amended spec
creates a separate offense.
2.“We have held that a convening authority’s entry into a PTA
that calls for pleas of guilty to offenses different from those
charged is the functional equivalent to an order referring those
offenses to court-martial.
3. Also, RCM 603(d) allows major changes to charge sheet if
accused does not object.
Artillery Strong!
19. Pleas, PTAs, Court-Martial Personnel
Panel Selection, Voir Dire, Challenges
U.S. v. Ferguson 68 MJ 431 (CAAF 2010) [M-10]
Accused talks on line with police officer posing as 14 y/o boy.
Sends nasty pics, masturbates and ejaculates in front of
webcam, etc. Pleads Guilty to indecent exposure. Claims on
appeal that it was not in public view & there was no evidence
that a 3rd person saw it or that accused intended anyone besides
the [undercover officer] to see it.
Issue: Did MJ err by accepting guilty plea?
Standard of Review: “When an accused pleads guilty, there is
no requirement that the govt establish the factual predicate of
the plea.
Artillery Strong!
20. Pleas, PTAs, Court-Martial Personnel
Panel Selection, Voir Dire, Challenges
U.S. v. Ferguson 68 MJ 431 (CAAF 2010) [M-10]
1. The factual predicate for a GP is sufficiently established if the
“factual circumstances” as presented by the accused objectively
support the plea.
2. An MJ’s acceptance of a GP will not be reversed based on the
“mere possibility” of defense.
3. The court will not “speculate” post-trial about the existence of
facts that might invalidate an accused’s guilty plea.
Holding: Court rejects cases dealing with “willful” and “public
view” elements—because those were from contested cases!
Here, the accused pled guilty and agreed that his actions were in
public view. “By doing so, appellant relinquished his right to
contest π’s theory on appeal unless ROT shows matter
inconsistent with his plea.”
Artillery Strong!
21. Pleas, PTAs, Court-Martial Personnel
Panel Selection, Voir Dire, Challenges
U.S. v. Hayes NMMCA, rev. granted by CAAF [M-20]
Male Sailor pleads guilty to indecent acts with another male. MJ
allegedly makes comments during BTG that “Marines should not
have to live with people like Seaman Hayes.” NMCCA says
comments, assuming arguendo they were true, were not that big
a deal. CAAF has set aside and ordered Dubay hearing or
something to find out exactly what MJ said.
Lesson: Be careful about letting an MJ run his mouth at BTG
about stuff that has nothing to do with the trial, etc. because TDS
may try to use it later. If there is an issue, get back on the record
immediately, or do a post-trial Art. 39a session and clear it up!
Artillery Strong!
22. Pleas, PTAs, Court-Martial Personnel
Panel Selection, Voir Dire, Challenges
U.S. v. Kirk (ACCA, 28 July 2010) [M-21]
Govt files Art. 62 appeal challenging MJs decision to suppress
accused’s statements to his 1SG. ACCA sua sponte comments
on the MJ recusing himself. MJ had said, “I do not expect to get
overturned on this issue..and if the case comes back..I will be
the MJ on the case..that is going to hear the facts in the future,
including the 1SG’s testimony…but if you want to appeal you are
welcome to. Is that your final decision govt? I just want to make
sure.
Holding: ACCA finds these “gratuitous comments” intemperate,
injudicious, and inconsistent with the impartial role he is to play
in the court-martial, creating at least the perception of unfairness
to the parties, potentially undermining public confidence in his
judicial role.
Artillery Strong!
23. Artillery Strong!
Sixth Amendment-Confrontation
U.S. v. Smith (ACCA, 28 July 2010) [N-1]
Coast Guard Academy Cadet pleads NG and gets convicted of
disobeying orders, sodomy, extortion, indecent assault. Gist of
case is that Smith got victim (female cadet) to have sex with him
by threatening to reveal that she had allegedly consensually sex
with several enlisted coast guardsmen. Smith wanted to X-examine
her that she falsely claimed sexual assault before (for
these acts with the enlisted CGs). Victim had first told him these
were non consensual acts, then told him she’d lied & that they
were consensual. Smith wants to bring this in under MRE 412,
constitutional exception. MJ refuses to allow it, but permits to
inform members that victim’s secret “was information that if
revealed could have an adverse effect on her career, etc.”
24. Artillery Strong!
Sixth Amendment-Confrontation
U.S. v. Smith (ACCA, 28 July 2010) [N-1]
Issue: Whether Smith was denied his right to confront victim?
Holding: No. 3-2 opinion. Citing Banker [2004 CAAF case], Ct.
concludes Smith failed to demonstrate evidence was relevant,
material, & vital to his defense. Ct. assumed that V’s sex with
enlisted members was relevant, but that it was neither material
nor vital to Smith’s defense. Issue was V’s credibility & MJs
remedy allowing Smith to present evidence that V had lied about
an important secret was adequate.
Smith has appealed to Supreme Court..argues CAAF should
have reviewed MJs decision de novo, not for abuse of discretion.
