<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cox Commission II and the issue that Anderson didn&#8217;t decide</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.caaflog.com/2010/03/04/cox-commission-ii-and-the-issue-that-anderson-didnt-decide/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.caaflog.com/2010/03/04/cox-commission-ii-and-the-issue-that-anderson-didnt-decide/</link>
	<description>Covering the Military Justice System</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:34:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Balkan Ghost</title>
		<link>http://www.caaflog.com/2010/03/04/cox-commission-ii-and-the-issue-that-anderson-didnt-decide/comment-page-1/#comment-12616</link>
		<dc:creator>Balkan Ghost</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4932#comment-12616</guid>
		<description>Why shouldn&#039;t opposing counsel be able to go after each other&#039;s experts?  If I am the gov&#039;t counsel, even if defense has the best expert in the business, I&#039;d still hope that I could stoutly cross-examine that defense expert, and even attack their qualification to give certain opinions.  That&#039;s advocacy.  

This issue is a non-issue.  If the gov&#039;t attack is so fundamental as &quot;you&#039;re not really an expert, are you?,&quot; then gov&#039;t is shooting themselves in the foot, since defense then has legitimate grounds in a 39(a) session to pause the trial until the gov&#039;t produces a real expert.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why shouldn&#8217;t opposing counsel be able to go after each other&#8217;s experts?  If I am the gov&#8217;t counsel, even if defense has the best expert in the business, I&#8217;d still hope that I could stoutly cross-examine that defense expert, and even attack their qualification to give certain opinions.  That&#8217;s advocacy.  </p>
<p>This issue is a non-issue.  If the gov&#8217;t attack is so fundamental as &#8220;you&#8217;re not really an expert, are you?,&#8221; then gov&#8217;t is shooting themselves in the foot, since defense then has legitimate grounds in a 39(a) session to pause the trial until the gov&#8217;t produces a real expert.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Cave</title>
		<link>http://www.caaflog.com/2010/03/04/cox-commission-ii-and-the-issue-that-anderson-didnt-decide/comment-page-1/#comment-12606</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Cave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4932#comment-12606</guid>
		<description>You might.  But this has happened in more cases than Anderson and none of the prosecutors in such cases felt the slightest bit of queeziness.  I&#039;ve had that experience and I know a number of active duty and civilian colleagues who had the experience.
Very telling about the perception of military justice.
Pity the Court appears to have moved away from the &quot;perception doctrine.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might.  But this has happened in more cases than Anderson and none of the prosecutors in such cases felt the slightest bit of queeziness.  I&#8217;ve had that experience and I know a number of active duty and civilian colleagues who had the experience.<br />
Very telling about the perception of military justice.<br />
Pity the Court appears to have moved away from the &#8220;perception doctrine.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John O'Connor</title>
		<link>http://www.caaflog.com/2010/03/04/cox-commission-ii-and-the-issue-that-anderson-didnt-decide/comment-page-1/#comment-12534</link>
		<dc:creator>John O'Connor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:56:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4932#comment-12534</guid>
		<description>I assumed the case was going to be about the commission&#039;s main theme -- creating an article for abuse of pets.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I assumed the case was going to be about the commission&#8217;s main theme &#8212; creating an article for abuse of pets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.caaflog.com/2010/03/04/cox-commission-ii-and-the-issue-that-anderson-didnt-decide/comment-page-1/#comment-12533</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:53:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4932#comment-12533</guid>
		<description>If I were a trial counsel, I&#039;d feel a wee bit shady attacking the fundamental qualifications of the expert I gave to the defense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I were a trial counsel, I&#8217;d feel a wee bit shady attacking the fundamental qualifications of the expert I gave to the defense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

