
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
In today's episode we discuss United States v. Driskell, where the CAAF held that a military judge's dismissal for want of jurisdiction - after the presentation of evidence and findings argument - was essentially an acquittal and therefore no rehearing was authorized under the Double Jeopardy Clause in the United States Constitution. We also briefly discuss the Hasan and Flores cases, but only very briefly. We then get to hear from Lt Col Allen Abrams for guidance on effectively getting concessions from witnesses on cross-examination without explicitly requesting the concession.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
In today's episode we discuss United States v. Driskell, where the CAAF held that a military judge's dismissal for want of jurisdiction - after the presentation of evidence and findings argument - was essentially an acquittal and therefore no rehearing was authorized under the Double Jeopardy Clause in the United States Constitution. We also briefly discuss the Hasan and Flores cases, but only very briefly. We then get to hear from Lt Col Allen Abrams for guidance on effectively getting concessions from witnesses on cross-examination without explicitly requesting the concession.

90,932 Listeners

43,818 Listeners

228,694 Listeners

38,800 Listeners

26,224 Listeners

153,509 Listeners

1,066 Listeners

1,942 Listeners

112,200 Listeners

56,496 Listeners

15,863 Listeners

26,623 Listeners

45 Listeners

22 Listeners

619 Listeners