
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
In today's episode we discuss two cases from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: United States v. Johnson, which cements the conclusion that military appellate courts will not correct an erroneous indorsement to the Statement of Trial Results or Entry of Judgment requiring firearm prohibitions; and United States v. Thomas, which discusses the burdens on the defense and government under Batson v. Kentucky . . . even though it is not at all clear that that case applies to the facts of this case. We then hear from Allen Abrams on the "permissive inference" and when and how to object to it.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
In today's episode we discuss two cases from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: United States v. Johnson, which cements the conclusion that military appellate courts will not correct an erroneous indorsement to the Statement of Trial Results or Entry of Judgment requiring firearm prohibitions; and United States v. Thomas, which discusses the burdens on the defense and government under Batson v. Kentucky . . . even though it is not at all clear that that case applies to the facts of this case. We then hear from Allen Abrams on the "permissive inference" and when and how to object to it.

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