
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.

90,964 Listeners

43,821 Listeners

228,737 Listeners

38,812 Listeners

26,222 Listeners

153,523 Listeners

1,068 Listeners

1,942 Listeners

112,270 Listeners

56,525 Listeners

15,855 Listeners

26,629 Listeners

45 Listeners

21 Listeners

620 Listeners