
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.

91,032 Listeners

43,919 Listeners

229,264 Listeners

38,779 Listeners

26,222 Listeners

154,120 Listeners

1,085 Listeners

1,948 Listeners

112,934 Listeners

56,548 Listeners

16,096 Listeners

26,639 Listeners

45 Listeners

21 Listeners

621 Listeners