Armed forces has recently, in a line of cases and their progeny, cast doubt as to the constitutionality of this provision as applied in a criminal setting. The court of appeals has, in a rather expansive dicta, said that notwithstanding the plain text of the military rule of evidence, which requires the judge to do this balancing test, that the privacy interests of a victim, the danger of unfair prejudice to a victims privacy interests, will never trump the introduction of evidence that is material to the defense and favorable to the defense at trial. That is, the constitutional right to present a defense will always trump the victims privacy interests. This case, United States versus gaddis, found in volume 70 of the military justice reporter, beginning, i believe, at page 248, and the court, although divided in that opinion, is united in its skepticism toward the applicability of this provision and whether the victims privacy is ever relevant to the admissibility of evidence in a cou
And a Princeton University talks about the challenges of keeping Nuclear Materials out of the hands of terrorist groups. As ohs, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. Washington journal live on cspan. The Defense Department Judicial Proceedings Panel is responsible for reviewing the military judicial process for Sexual Assault. The five member panel met on friday to look a statute in the uniform code of military justice to determine whether they are clear or must be up aided. This portion is about an hour and 10 minutes. Good morning again. Late. To be a few minutes we will deal with the panel that rules and on military courtmartial proceedings. Witnesses before us. We have highly qualified experts and attorney advisors. Welcome to both of you. Lets start with you, colonel baker. Thank you. Good morning. m that uppity director director. We are here to speak about 412 and 513 and how they are litigated at hearings. To give my comments some pe
The proposal thats currently before thats out for Public Comment from the joint Services Committee is to specifically exclude the constitution exceptions at article 32 hearings. 412, 513 and 514. So at an article 32 preliminary hearing, the first two exceptions would apply, and the third exception would not. Does that answer your question on that issue, maam . And you can and we can the staff can get you a copy of the proposal. Its on the web. What would the Practical Impact be of taking away the third exception . The Practical Impact of taking away the third exception would be the kind of the debate at an article 32 hearing about such things that bill talked about bias, motive to fabricate prior false allegations, things that typically are raised under the constitutionally required prong would not be deemed relevant at a preliminary hearing, whose only real purpose is now to determine probable cause, whether the accused should be courtmartialed for a particular offense. In the first t