Yesterday CAAF granted review in an Army case:

No. 18-0091/AR. U.S. v. Andrew J. Criswell. CCA 20150530. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN DENYING A DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE ACCUSING WITNESS’S IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION OF APPELLANT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25

The Army CCA’s opinion is available here.

4 Responses to “CAAF grants review of admission of an in-court identification”

  1. Anonymous says:

    What is with the page upon page of dicta in this case? It seems to go into the realm of advisory opinion on what they will allow a judge to do — encouraging almost — rather than addressing an issue of confusion. Am I wrong? 

  2. Philip D. Cave says:

    Another example of why neither trial nor defense should take CID (or other LE) investigations at, dare I say it, face value.
    Princess–please tell us they teach identification procedures and issues while lost in the wood.
     
    NIJ, OJP, USDOJ, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement (and DC seeking to XE on a bad ID).
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf
    You might also take a look at the following for a starting point when ID is an issue.
    Wise, Richard A. and Safer, Martin A., “A Method for Analyzing the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal Cases” (2012). Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association. 387. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/387

  3. Alfonso Decimo says:

    This is very useful. Gamesmanship with the deferral of pleas is unfairly disruptive and the opinion’s discussion on it should be part of the MJ course curriculum in Charlottesville. Also, the analysis on in-court identification should be part of every practitioner’s trial binder. I love it when the appellate decisions actually serve as guidance. It’s so old-school!

  4. Anonymous says:

    Alfonso, 
    Procedural requirements should not compel injustice. The court opinion appears to suggest a world where judges should not defer pleas and then grant relief from waiver. It also operates from an assumption that late motions arrive from gamesmanship rather than from things like discovery finally arriving or counsel changing or myriad other reason. Such a system will certainly result in legitimate motions not being considered given the players involved and a discovery process that starts after service of charges after referral.