
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
In this week's episode we discuss one CAAF case, one N-MCCA case, and the reversing the script on MRE 404(b). The CAAF case is United States v. Patterson, where CAAF declines to second guess the AFCCA on factual sufficiency because it is statutorily restricted to reviewing questions of law. The N-MCCA case has several issues, including the permissive inference in a no-BCD SPCM, the Confrontation Clause, and the Constitutionality of a mandatory no-BCD SPCM in a drug case. We then hear from Raquel Muscioni on utilizing M.R.E. 404(b) to prove up motive, competence, or other non-character matters pertaining to government witnesses.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
In this week's episode we discuss one CAAF case, one N-MCCA case, and the reversing the script on MRE 404(b). The CAAF case is United States v. Patterson, where CAAF declines to second guess the AFCCA on factual sufficiency because it is statutorily restricted to reviewing questions of law. The N-MCCA case has several issues, including the permissive inference in a no-BCD SPCM, the Confrontation Clause, and the Constitutionality of a mandatory no-BCD SPCM in a drug case. We then hear from Raquel Muscioni on utilizing M.R.E. 404(b) to prove up motive, competence, or other non-character matters pertaining to government witnesses.

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