
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
In this episode we discuss United States v. Caswell, where the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals declined to follow the bench book and CAAF precedent, because it found that by moving the offense of unlawful possession of a concealed dangerous weapon from Article 134 to Article 114, the nature of the offense changed to put more onus on the unlawfulness element. Therefore, it declined to apply the "permissive inference" that previously allowed the factfinder to infer unlawfulness based solely on evidence the weapon was concealed. We then shift gears and talk about an upcoming CAAF case (United States v. Miller) on the issue of whether the automatic closure of an MRE 412 hearing is unconstitutional.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
In this episode we discuss United States v. Caswell, where the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals declined to follow the bench book and CAAF precedent, because it found that by moving the offense of unlawful possession of a concealed dangerous weapon from Article 134 to Article 114, the nature of the offense changed to put more onus on the unlawfulness element. Therefore, it declined to apply the "permissive inference" that previously allowed the factfinder to infer unlawfulness based solely on evidence the weapon was concealed. We then shift gears and talk about an upcoming CAAF case (United States v. Miller) on the issue of whether the automatic closure of an MRE 412 hearing is unconstitutional.

90,929 Listeners

43,859 Listeners

228,853 Listeners

38,840 Listeners

26,226 Listeners

153,483 Listeners

1,068 Listeners

1,942 Listeners

112,022 Listeners

56,495 Listeners

15,835 Listeners

26,611 Listeners

46 Listeners

22 Listeners

618 Listeners