On Tuesday, CAAF specified the following two issues:

I. WHETHER THE CIVILIAN POLICE DRUG SEIZURE REPORT IN THIS CASE IS A REPORT SETTING FORTH “MATTERS OBSERVED BY POLICE OFFICERS . . . ACTING IN A LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY,” AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER M.R.E. 803(6) (BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION), WHEN IT WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER M.R.E. 803(8) (PUBLIC RECORDS EXCEPTION). COMPARE, e.g., UNITED STATES v. OATES, 560 F.2d 45, 77-78 (2d Cir. 1977) (HOLDING THAT POLICE RECORDS THAT WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS EXCEPTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED WOULD ALSO BE INADMISSIBLE UNDER ANY OTHER EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE) WITH UNITED STATES v. HAYES, 861 F.2d 225, 1230 (10th Cir. 1988) (HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO LIMITATION TO THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION IF THE AUTHOR OF THE PROFFERED DOCUMENT TESTIFIES AT TRIAL).

II. IF THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN ADMITTING THE POLICE DRUG SEIZURE REPORT, WHETHER THE ERROR MATERIALLY PREJUDICED APPELLANT’S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS?

United States v. Clayton, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0417/AR (C.A.A.F. Sept. 16, 2008).

I can’t find ACCA’s decision in the case.

3 Responses to “CAAF specificies interesting evidentiary issues”

  1. Anonymous says:

    ACCA’s opinon was a summary affirmance (surprised?). However, the only relevant issue raised by the defense at both courts was factual/legal sufficency.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t there a larger Crawford issue, similar to what was discussed on CAAFlog a little while ago about drug lab results?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Why would there be a Crawford issue if the person who prepared the report testified?