.jpg)
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
New CAAF grant
A new grant went up on the daily journal on CAAF's web site today. The issue in United States v. Toy, No. 07-0316/NA, is: "Whether Mil.R.Evid. 317(a) incorporates state statutes when determining an unlawful interception of an oral or wire communication." Sounds interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I'm curious to know the fact pattern underlying this issue. I'm willing to wager it is even more interesting than the issue statement indicates.
Yeah, one of the stranger ones. That's a whole different blog, though. The granted issue is a really good one, and should win. I might have brought my old Appellate Defense CD out here (yeah, I know, I'm a dork. I brought my Bluebook to Afghanistan, too. So sue me.) I'll see if I can find the brief and summerize the issue, at least as it existed four years ago at CCA.
Clipper, you should send me a picture of you and the Bluebook, I will post it on CAAFlog. Maybe we can caption it, "Really No Man's not the only dork contributor to this site." Actually, you should send the picture to the publisher and try to get free new editions for life-I know that would be the highlight of your legal career, but it's never too early to peak.
I think that might work. Especially since it will be apparent from the picture that I'm still stuck with the Sixteenth Edition. How can Afghanistan be expected to make any progress when we're using inferior citation manuals? I bet all the Eighteenth Editions are in Iraq.
The facts as quoted from the opinion of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals:
"The appellant married a woman who had two daughters by a previous marriage. One of the daughters, M, was 10 years old when the appellant began dating her mother, and she developed a crush on the appellant. The appellant married M's mother in 1995 when M was 13 years old, and the family transferred to Hawaii shortly thereafter. In 1997, when M was 15 years old, the appellant performed oral sex on her and had her perform oral sex on him. When M was 16 years old, the appellant engaged in sexual intercourse with her on two occasions. The appellant's wife found him in bed with M and gave him an ultimatum: the appellant's wife would report him to the police unless he agreed to be secured to the headboard of the marital bed when there were no other adults in the house to protect the step-daughters from the appellant.
The appellant grew tired of being handcuffed to the bed and eventually verbal disagreements arose between the appellant and his wife. The appellant's wife secretly audio taped one of those arguments in which the appellant admitted, in part, what he had done with his step-daughter, M. The appellant's wife also placed a video camera at the foot of their marital bed, with the appellant's knowledge, and recorded a conversation between the appellant and herself and then left the room while the camera videotaped the appellant handcuffed to their bed.
United States v. Toy, NMCCA 200001418, slip op. at 3 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. 21 Dec 2006)
http://www.jag.navy.mil/NMCCA/TOY%20D.R.%20200001418%20UNPUB.doc
Sacramentum --The Military Justice Blog
http://militaryjusticeblog.blogspot.com/
As I look at the CCA opinion, I see that the issue is different than the one we did in 2002. For good reasons, I'm sure. One good reason might be that my issue kept losing.
Post a Comment