.jpg)
On Sunday, the Washington Post and 60 Minutes ran important stories dealing with scientific quackery about lead composition analysis that FBI lab analysis peddled for years. See here and here and here.
Today's Post contains a follow-up by John Solomon about the Senate Judiciary Committee's response to the Post's earlier reporting. The article's lead reads: "The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday demanded that the Justice Department turn over to Congress all cases involving the FBI lab's use of a now-discredited bullet-matching forensic test and criticized the department for failing to alert defendants whose convictions were affected by the flawed science." The article also stated, "In response to the reports, the FBI has announced it will review all bullet-lead testimonies that led to convictions and alert prosecutors to any misleading statements so that defendants can be notified. Separately, two umbrella groups for criminal-defense lawyers are launching their own effort to help people who might have been convicted using the science."
One case where the now-discredited FBI lead composition analysis was used is familiar to military justice practitioners: United States v. LCpl Wade Walker, No. 9501607 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. redocketed Aug. 10, 1995). LCpl Walker, of course, currently resides on death row and the United States Disciplinary Barracks.
I haven't read the complete record of trial in United States v. Parker, but I suspect similar quackery was presented in that case. Can one of his counsel let us know?
[Disclaimer: I was an appellate defense counsel in the Walker case.]
Military justice blogs are to blogs as military music is to music. The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacity. They do not purport to be speaking for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity.
Military justice research links
- 2008 Military Judges' Benchbook web site
- AFMAN 51-203, Records of Trial (1 Oct 1999)
- AFPD 51-2, Administration of Military Justice (7 Sep 1993)
- Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice (21 Dec 07)
- Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct
- AR 27-10, Military Justice (16 Nov 2005)
- AR 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (1 May 1992)
- COMDTINST M5810.1D, Military Justice Manual (17 Aug 2000)
- Congressional Research Service, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Trends (March 30, 2006 ed.)
- Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (2002) with 2006 supplement
- JAGINST 5803.1C, Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the Judge Advocate General (9 Nov 04)
- JAGINST 5810.2A, Military Justice Regulations (17 Sep 93)
- JAGMAN, JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 07)
- Law Library Microform Consortium, Military Law Collection
- LOC military law collection
- Manual for Courts-Martial (2008 ed.)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.)
- Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN), JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 2007)
- Military Justice, Army Regulation 27-10 (16 Nov 2005)
- UCMJ (as of 28 Jan 2008)
Links
- ACCA's web site
- AFCCA's web site
- AIr Force Judge Advocate General's School's web site
- Air Force Law Review
- Army Lawyer
- Army Trial Judiciary's docket
- CAAF's web site
- CAAFlog.com
- CGCCA's web site
- Coast Guard trial and appellate dockets
- Court-Martial Trial Practice blog
- JAA American Inn of Court's web site
- JAA's web site
- JAG LAW Blog
- JAG Magazine [Navy]
- Journal of Military and Veteran Law
- Military Law Review
- Naval Law Review
- NIMJ's web site
- NJS's web site
- NMCCA's web site
- SCOTUSblog (aka, the greatest blog on the planet)
- Supreme Court's web site
- The Reporter [Air Force]
- This Court-Martial Sentences You To . . . [blog]
- TJAGLCS's web site
Blog archive
-
▼
2007
(657)
-
▼
November
(53)
- Brown's essence
- AF JAG certifies CA reassessment issue
- First opinion of the Term
- Additional briefing ordered in Larson -- UPDATED
- SG's opposition in Foerster
- You can't spell CCA without A-C-C
- Still can't see the Foerster
- A civilian analog to Article 66 review
- Duty, Duty, Duty
- MCM hijinks
- Capital writ appeal
- Another addendum sjar non-service grant
- Does the SCRA tolling provision apply during perio...
- Beware the Navy JAG Corps web site's reading room
- Just call me Sir Links-a-lot
- Shakespearian anagrams
- Get the lead out of military justice
- Another interesting but enigmatic daily journal entry
- 20 minutes of fame
- Maybe Army GAD can represent the mid-Atlantic stat...
- Three more summary decisions from C Double A F
- Would they have held a seance if the author judge ...
- Another CAAFlog contest
- Is it a conflict for an accused to be represented ...
- Another big news day in the NCAA and the C Double A F
- An SJA's handling of clemency matters
- Challenge to former military judge serving as SJA
- CAAF to review two member challenge cases
- CAAF to resolve service split over sentencing evid...
- Six new granted cases
- New published AFCCA opinion
- Granted providence inquiry issue
- Jurisdictionpalooza
- New CAAF grant
- CAAF's focus on its own jurisdictional limitations...
- Pumping out the pubs
- Hakuna Watada
- Not a unitary Code of Military Justice
- Another stealth published NMCCA decision
- CAAF grants review of Mil. R. Evid. 807 issues
- Complicated but fascinating issue
- Two steps forward, one step back
- Garcia still on Supremes' docket
- Cert denied in jurisdictionless case
- Why Condi Rice Needs a Trip to Pier 1
- Summer in C'ville
- Problems at Defense Forensics Computer Laboratory
- To quote John Denver, I'm leaving on a jet plane
- One more stat
- Crunching some federal civilian criminal numbers
- Best chance of relief?
- ACCA answers the age-old question of whether surre...
- A limited time offer
-
▼
November
(53)
Labels
- Admin (14)
- Architecture (2)
- Art. 2a10 (27)
- Article 125 (1)
- CAAF docket (41)
- CAAF grants (28)
- CAAF judges (2)
- CAAF oral argument audio (11)
- Capital courts-martial (46)
- CCAs (32)
- CLE/Events (13)
- collateral review (4)
- Court-martial news (69)
- habeas (5)
- MEJA (31)
- Military commissions (5)
- Military justice legislation (19)
- Military justice reform (18)
- MilJus Scholarship (22)
- New Article 120 (8)
- New CAAF opinions (40)
- New CCA opinions (47)
- Rants (9)
- SCOTUS MilJus Cases (64)
- TWIMJ (39)
- US SOFAs (16)
Contributors
Our contact information
You can reach us by email at:
caaflog@caaflog.com
caaflog@caaflog.com
Posts
6 comments:
This may be reason number 1000 why the military should never try capital cases. For reasons 1 through 999 see Colonel Sullivan's recent article on the military death penalty. Confessions and eyewitness accounts will never do. Let us bring in lead analysis as in Walker, or gang analysis as in Quintanilla. I would like to be the first to congratulate the United States government on its successful campaign to get LCPL Walker a new trial fifteen years after its first attempt to kill him. Had it only tried to confine him for life, appellate review would have been completed, and he would be filing a writ of error coram nobis that would likely be denied. Military prosecutors are their own worst enemy in serious cases.
You can't believe the FBI, you can't believe the CIA, and you can't believe your client. Words to live by.
I agree with the sage
Anonymous, our most plentiful commenter. The best service you can do to your client is to doubt everything the government tells you and your client tells you. Ondependently verify the facts. But, if the military judge prevents you from hiring an expert or inspecting the evidence, how do you independently verify the facts. It is a lot easier to know that your client's story doesn't hold up than to verify that an FBI metallurgist, who was the only person to inspect evidence in your case, was full of . . . lead.
This is exactly why
The rights in Ake v. Oklahoma were created, and the reason why denial of funding or inspection of the evidence under that regime has to have consequences when something like this occurs. Will it?
Note: I too was once a counsel in the Walker case.
Walker and Parker BOTH deserve to die. They were guilty PERIOD. A shotgun was used in their case anyway not a rifle so who cares about matching lead. Screw them both and may they rot in hell.
Not to mention all of the other evidence against walker and parker. Let me guess, somebody planted Lcpl James blood on the back underside of walkers car that was brought into the courtroom? I hate our justice system, losers like you who fight for the guilty while wasting all of our tax money. I do suppose that some innocent people are convicted, but clearly not in this case. My God this happened over 15 years ago, and they are still breathing. More than we can say for their 2 victims.
Before you pass judgement, please get all your facts straight. Yes these men are on death row and it has been 15 years, what was the total involvement of both of these men? My understanding is that several others involved in this case stated that Walker was NOT the gunman, and he was NOT the driver, though it was his car. If Walker had been executed, as anonymous states, where is the ability to correct any errors made by the prosecutors, defense attorneys, or witnesses? Currently, the murder convictions have been overturned, it is a good thing that we do not listen to people who have hatred as their guide.
Post a Comment