NMCCA yesterday released this published opinion concerning application of the rule of completeness to two related statements obtained by NCIS.  United States v. Foisy, __ M.J. __, No. NMCCA 201000026 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. July 20, 2010).  Chief Judge Reismier wrote for the court.  Senior Judge Maksym joined the opinion.  Judge Beal agreed with the majority’s analysis, but dissented because of his view of Article 120’s constitutionality, which affected his view of the appropriate remedy.

I may not have time this evening, but I’ll try to post something further if none of my CAAFlog colleagues beat me to it.  It’s an interesting and well-executed decision.

7 Responses to “NMCCA issues published rule of completeness decision”

  1. Anonymous says:

    And wrong. It’s as if CCA is on a different planet than everyone else these days.

  2. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    I saw nothing wrong in the decision. The first statement clearly set the context for the second (supplemental) statement. I will bet though that NCIS removes thatterm from its lexicon.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Care to elaborate? This is an easy reversal, and was a poor ruling by the MJ.

  4. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Anon at 818pm–I’d like to hear some elaboration as well. Snarking is so easy, teenagers can do it. Offer up some argument, you may have a good one.

    SDC-I would hope that NCIS continues to be scrupulously fair and honest as they were in this case. Trial counsel blew this case by fighting to keep the full statement out. Given that facts as related in the opinion, I think the gov’t would have had a fair chance at conviction in any case. (In hindsight, perhaps the gov’t should not have admitted either statement, putting the accused in the position of having to take the stand to get his side of the story in front of the members.)

  5. anonymous says:

    Amen. I’ve seen too many trial counsel automatically introduce any “confession” from the accused and defense counsel reflexively move to suppress it. Imagine this case if the defense had “won” such a motion.

  6. Anonymous says:

    wrong you say? Interesting. So, you’d be ok with the opposite result?

    Because were I CID or NCIS or what have you, I’d simply have an accused make a statement, not care what he said as long as I got him to admit something.

    Bring him in later, ONLY ask him to supplement his prior statement with a restatement of the fact that he is guilty or something incriminating and boom you get to introduce a highly skewed statement without any regard to fairness at all.

    Or, kinda what happened in this case.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I had a case with three statements. Two were somewhat harmful (although not unrecoverable from), but one was completely helpful. I fought to suppress, and won, on the two that were harmful thanks to police stupidity in one case and CID stupidity in the other.

    I sat silently when government admitted the third statement because it was very helpful. A smarter trial counsel would have done as you said and not admitted it. I still probably would have gotten an acquittal, but you never know.