Friday, August 17, 2007

Now HERE is an issue presented!

BZ to the defense counsel who wrote the following issue presented:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF RAPE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION WHERE THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED NO EVIDENCE OF IMMEDIATE FORCE AND LACK OF CONSENT AT OR REASONABLY NEAR THE TIME THAT THE PROSECUTRIX, INTER ALIA, ARRANGED FOR OFF-BASE HOTEL ROOMS TO MEET APPELLANT, MADE HER OWN WAY TO HOTEL ROOMS TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH APPELLANT, SMOKED CIGARETTES AND DRANK BEER IN BED WITH APPELLANT, AND ORDERED PIZZA AND ATE IT IN BED WITH APPELLANT DURING HER MEETINGS WITH APPELLANT WHERE SHE AND APPELLANT ENGAGED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Not surprisingly, CAAF has granted review. United States v. Bright, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0269/AR (C.A.A.F. Aug. 16, 2007). I can't find ACCA's opinion in the case.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Civilian defense counsel who wrote the issue presented was Charles W. Gittens. Army CCA opinion was a 2 line affirmance with a lengthy footnote denying an IAC claim.

No Man said...

Nice question presented, except use of the phrase inter alia. Why do lawyers want to ruin a perfectly cogent and convincing statement of the issues with a phrase like inter alia? Take it out and is the sentence any worse? I'd say it is better without it. But, that's a pet peave and shouldn't detract from an otherwise nice piece of legal work.
Nice QP Mr. G.

Gene Fidell said...

My late senior partner, Arvin E. Upton, had so many pet peeves about legal writing that we junior lawyers once assembled an Index of Prohibited Words and Usages. One of them was to "avoid words in a foreign language--except on a menu."