Litigator Libations

Send us Fan Mail

In this week's episode we break down United States v. Valentin-Andino, which is a published opinion from the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.  In it, the court clarifies that a deferment request is not a request for clemency, and then relies on fairness and procedural due process to find that, like clemency, where a convening authority considers matters submitted by a victim when acting on a deferment request, the convening authority must provide notice and an opportunity to respond to the defense.  Major Allen Abrams then discusses how to ensure "gotcha" statements are admitted for the proper purpose at courts-martial.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this week's episode we discuss the recent case of United States v. Pyron, which was decided by CAAF on 17 January 2023.  The case addresses an exception to the general rule that the government may use an accused's testimony at a prior court-martial at a subsequent rehearing; and then finds the exception does not apply.  For our advocacy section, Major Allen Abrams discusses different aspects of authentication; the foundation for admissibility.  

Send us Fan Mail

In today's episode Major Allen Abrams discusses the unpublished Air Force case of United States v. Brown -- specifically discussing trial counsel's improper argument in sentencing by invoking command policy for purposes of increasing the punishment of the convicted Airman.  We note that the case cite to United States v. Greenwood was meant to be to United States  v. Gatewood; but the citation was correct:  65 M.J. 724.  In the advocacy portion of today's podcast, Major Matt Leal discusses The Chapter Method of cross-examination, as described to him by Mr. Larry Posner at a recent NACDL training event.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we discuss the recent CAAF case of United States v. Day, which declined a defense invitation to overrule its precedent and held "attempt to conspire" continues to be an offense under the UCMJ (even though most jurisdictions reject such an offense).  We then move into a discussion of effective presentation style, with Major Allen Abrams discussing the effective use of volume.  Happy New Year!

Send us Fan Mail

In today's episode we will discuss some of the provisions of the FY23 NDAA.  At the time the Podcast was originally recorded the Senate had not yet passed the bill but, at the time of posting, it has--so disregard any discussion of potential changes to the bill.  In our advocacy portion, Major Allen Abrams will discuss the highs and lows of pitch, which is part three of his presentation of Presentation!  

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode Darrel discusses the two Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals opinions that were published in 2022:  U.S. v. Anderson and U.S. v. Heppermann.  The first case deals with waiver and the second case focuses on statutory construction; although the legal issue was legal and factual sufficiency.  We then turn to our advocacy portion where Major Allen Abrams discusses, and gives examples of, pacing and the impact it has on conveying meaning beyond the words themselves.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode you will hear Darrel Johnson discussing the CAAF case of United States v. Black, which was an Article 62 appeal of the trial judge's suppression of evidence seized after a consent search, but where that consent was sought based on an illegal search of the appellant's cellular phone.  Turning to our advocacy portion, Major Allen Abrams provides an introduction into a multi-part series on how to improve your delivery -- that is the "how" you say rather than just the "what" you say.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this week's episode Major Allen Abrams discusses an a doctoral thesis that focuses on the impacts on service member when the member is court-martialed on weak charges and then discusses word choice at court-martial and how getting rid of coordinating conjunctions may improve your story-telling.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we discuss United States v. Bench, a CAAF cases that involves the remote testimony of a child witness, but the real issue is whether the Confrontation Clause is offended when trial counsel deceives the child witness by falsely informing them that the accused is not present and will not hear the child's testimony.  We then turn to Military Rule of Evidence 608(b), which allows counsel to cross-examine a witness on specific instances of contact that speak to the veracity of the testifying witness.  

Send us Fan Mail

Season 2 of Litigator Libations kicks off with a discussion of US v. Nelson a case where CAAF resolves nothing.  The issue is the proper remedy for an Article 31 rights violation but although three judges agreed the NMCCA should be affirmed, they could not agree as to why -- no precedential value but an interesting issue.  We next discuss the science and art of voir dire.  Welcome back to Litigator Libations!