|
Conference: Transparency in Military Justice
Please join the National Institute of Military Justice at their upcoming in-person conference on transparency in military justice (zoom attendance also available). Hear from path-breaking members of the Pentagon press corps, as well as from scholars and advocates who have deep experience with the legislative process and with court proceedings, as they try to open a window into military justice. Optional registration is here--if attending via Zoom, registration is required. Panel I: The Role of the Press | 10:00AM-11:30AM Moderator: Brenner Fissell, NIMJ David Philipps, National Correspondent, The New York Times Kyle Rempfer, Editor, The Washington Post Thomas Brennan, Founder, The Warhorse News Jessica Kegu, Producer, CBS News Panel II: Public Involvement in Lawmaking and Rulemaking | 12:30PM--1:45PM Moderator: Rachel VanLandingham, NIMJ Eugene Fidell, Senior Research Scholar, Yale Law School Jamie Jackson, Partner, K&L Gates Don Christensen, Of Counsel, Solomon Law Panel III: Public Access to Courts | 2:00PM--3:15PM Moderator: Franklin Rosenblatt, NIMJ Seth Berlin, Senior Counsel, Ballard Spahr Sarah Matthews, Deputy GC, Pro Publica Brittany Warren, Senior Associate, WilmerHale A Confrontation CaseThe Supreme Court has granted a petition in Smith v. Arizona. The outcome may be relevant for prosecutions of drug cases based on a urinalysis or DNA-involved cases.
Issue: Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst. See more at SCOTUSblog. Prof. Friedman says, “Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899, a case that might help provide some clarity much needed since the Court's decision in Williams v. Illinois.” We say may because of how the prosecution usually presents urinalysis lab results at court-martial compared to what may have happened in Smith. |
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
Co-editors:
Phil Cave Brenner Fissell Links
SCOTUS CAAF -Daily Journal -2025 Ops ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA JRAP JRTP UCMJ Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.) Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.) Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.) MCM 2024 MCM 2023 MCM 2019 MCM 2016 MCM 2012 MCM 1995 UMCJ History Global Reform Army Lawyer JAG Reporter Army Crim. L. Deskbook J. App. Prac. & Pro. Archives
February 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed