For the second day in a row, the Supremes’ electronic docket added a cert petition filed by an Army DAD counsel. Today’s addition is Foerster v. United States, No. 07-359, in which CPT Nathan J. Bankson seeks the Supreme Court’s review of CAAF’s application of Crawford v. Washington in United States v. Foerster, 65 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2007). BZ to Army DAD!
An anonymous commentator to yesterday’s post on the Sanchez cert petition provides this helpful information:
In Sanchez, the QP was:
Whether the standard of appellate review for the admission of expert testimony at a criminal trial should be de novo in light of: (1) empirical studies suggesting that trial judges do not have the background to adequately rule on complicated issues of expert testimony; (2) the highly controversial and evolving nature of expert testimony commonly admitted at criminal proceedings; (3) the persuasiveness of expert testimony upon a lay juror; (4) the unequal access to “shaky but admissible” expert testimony for a criminal defendant; and (5) the unique concerns of a criminal trial arising from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
In Foerster, CPT Nathan Bankson framed the issue as:
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces properly held that an affidavit prepared and sworn to by the victim of a crime and relied upon by the government to convict petitioner did not violate petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the victim’s affidavit was not testimonial and also properly admissible as a business record under Military Rule of Evidence 803(6).