
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us Fan Mail
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 Fan Mail
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.

113,294 Listeners

56,982 Listeners

14,333 Listeners

15,490 Listeners

29,273 Listeners

16,494 Listeners