tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post1556190587040261520..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Air Force Court creates service split on whether victim's trauma from appearing at trial is permissible aggravation evidenceDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-55229421757462143122008-03-31T13:56:00.000-04:002008-03-31T13:56:00.000-04:00I think this anonymous poster who keeps invoking t...I think this anonymous poster who keeps invoking the phrase: "we in the defense bar..." must be putting out a mock-moralistic-charicature. (I.e., "I think WE pharmacists should decide whether or not the patient deserves the prescribed medicine; I think WE firemen should decide if the building is worthy of saving," etc...) <BR/><BR/>"Pain?" First of all, most military crimes actually result in NO pain. Most military crimes result in theoretical bad results if the act were allowed to become common. (UA, drugs, disobedience, etc.) But "pain" is not the usual consequence. Second, the supposed "contempt" for victims is simply not true, and its a nonsequiter, anyway. And, for your information, Sharia law provides the best example of taking the victim into account. <BR/><BR/>It I sure hope this person is not really a defense attorney. <BR/><BR/>Hey, self-righteous hack, since you are so interested in tightening the professionalism of the military, would you shine my shoes? If you say no, then you cause me great pain and you're a traitor, to boot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-75274900413180539392008-03-31T08:52:00.000-04:002008-03-31T08:52:00.000-04:00And the spelling, dipshit. My goal is to provide a...And the spelling, dipshit. My goal is to provide a zealous defense for each of my clients, and if that means that a guilty person is acquitted, fine. (Just as long as they don't live next door to me after.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-4224020667267422752008-03-31T07:45:00.000-04:002008-03-31T07:45:00.000-04:00Why is it that otherwise normal, reasonable, peope...Why is it that otherwise normal, reasonable, peopel lose their head when placed in the role of the prosecutor? Isn't that backwards? Too often we in the defense bar lose sight of the pain of being a crime vicim and treat victims with contempt. The ethical standards for our profession need to be toightened considerably.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-64040117434834121872008-03-29T21:56:00.000-04:002008-03-29T21:56:00.000-04:00Well, Anonymous #2, I think it's pretty much sophi...Well, Anonymous #2, I think it's pretty much sophistry to contend that it's unconstitutional to cause an accused to suffer negative consequences from his exercise of a constitutional right. The most obvious example that comes to mind is that the law permits accuseds who plead guilty to be treated better in sentencing than those who don't. Or in other words, someone's exercise of his constitutional right to plead not guilty can be treated worse than someone who gave up that right. Same with those who give up the (likely subconstitutional) right to trial by members.<BR/><BR/>My off-the-cuff sense is that this evidence is probably analogous to commenting on an accused's failure to take responsibility for his offenses. I have not read any case law or given it anything near deep thought, as the main point of my post is the same as Anonymous #1's point, that it's stupid to create appellate risk when the victim's trauma is probably more or less self-evident.John O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014476389355562158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-19167727193609308902008-03-29T21:14:00.000-04:002008-03-29T21:14:00.000-04:00If you believe this decision is right, can you ple...If you believe this decision is right, can you please explain how an RCM can trump the Constitution, b/c that's the bottom line of the AFCCA's opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-86840990525771065122008-03-29T16:58:00.000-04:002008-03-29T16:58:00.000-04:00It's ironic that the government's concern over the...It's ironic that the government's concern over the victim's anguish may now prolong it. I wonder if she'll have to testify at a sentencing rehearing. Even if she doesn't, the continued lack of finality seems like an unnecessary distress.Marcus Fultonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14070796580668712006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-6927223430904247972008-03-29T11:49:00.000-04:002008-03-29T11:49:00.000-04:00CAAF should fix it and adopt the Army and 8th posi...CAAF should fix it and adopt the Army and 8th position.<BR/>Prosecutors do this in many cases, it is not limited to child abuse cases.<BR/>Prosecutors are seeking to punish and accused for exercising the constitutional right to a trial of the facts.Phil Cavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14474250926717405497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-25382401692901629102008-03-29T09:06:00.000-04:002008-03-29T09:06:00.000-04:00Why is it that otherwise normal, reasonable people...Why is it that otherwise normal, reasonable people lose their heads when placed in the role of prosecutor? <BR/><BR/>Most prosecutors do it right, but a small minority does not, and then to compound the problem, courts will tie themselves in knots to ratify the misconduct, normally due to the (unspoken) acknowledgment that "we all know the accused is guilty." The same is true in the case of police or investigator misconduct.<BR/><BR/>In this particular case, the jury knows darn well the process is traumatic on the accusing witness--they just saw her testify. Why on Earth do you risk your case with improper evidence when you're going to get a good sentence anyway based upon the facts of the crime?<BR/><BR/>Enough ranting--AFCCA got it wrong, Army got it right. CAAF will fix it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-12064395727582172202008-03-29T07:58:00.000-04:002008-03-29T07:58:00.000-04:00My initial thought is that, on blance, AFCCA proba...My initial thought is that, on blance, AFCCA probably is right on the issue of admissibility, but this is a clear violation of O'Connor's Law. You have a sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl. You think you really need to have someone testifying that GOING THROUGH THE JUDICIAL PROCESS was hard for her in order to make sure you get a good sentence? Why operate so close to the fire? I wonder if the TC had researched the issue (and found the Army case) before going down this road. My guess would be no, and it's probably worse if the answer is yes.John O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014476389355562158noreply@blogger.com