-
1
-
-
34047092127
-
-
Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833 (Nov. 13, 2001) [hereinafter Presidential Military Order No. 1].
-
Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833 (Nov. 13, 2001) [hereinafter Presidential Military Order No. 1].
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
34047149192
-
-
2 WILLIAM WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS 831 (2d ed. 1920).
-
2 WILLIAM WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS 831 (2d ed. 1920).
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
34047143591
-
-
U.S. 748
-
Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 760 (1996).
-
(1996)
United States
, vol.517
, pp. 760
-
-
Loving1
-
4
-
-
34047132589
-
-
United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarels, 350 U.S. 11, 22 (1955).
-
United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarels, 350 U.S. 11, 22 (1955).
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
34047164850
-
-
126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
-
126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
34047178773
-
-
Id. at 2772-75. Justice Stevens's decision for the majority pointed out that the Court's decision in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 16 (1866), noted the necessity of congressional sanction of military tribunals established by the President unless in cases of a controlling necessity, and that neither the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) nor the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) expanded the President's authority to establish military commissions. Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2772-75.
-
Id. at 2772-75. Justice Stevens's decision for the majority pointed out that the Court's decision in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 16 (1866), noted the necessity of congressional sanction of military tribunals established by the President "unless in cases of a controlling necessity," and that neither the Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") nor the Detainee Treatment Act ("DTA") expanded the President's authority to establish military commissions. Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2772-75.
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
34047124594
-
-
at
-
Id. at 2786-93.
-
-
-
Loving1
-
8
-
-
34047188879
-
-
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Id. at 2759. Justice Kennedy concurred with the majority in ruling that the establishment of the military commissions was illegitimate and that the commissions were in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, but declined to reach the issues of whether Common Article 3 required the accused to be present at all stages of trial, and whether Hamdan could be charged with conspiracy before the commission. Id. at 2799-809. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Id. at 2810. Chief Justice Roberts did not take part, as he was a member of the D.C. Circuit panel that had heard the case below. Id. at 2799.
-
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Id. at 2759. Justice Kennedy concurred with the majority in ruling that the establishment of the military commissions was illegitimate and that the commissions were in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, but declined to reach the issues of whether Common Article 3 required the accused to be present at all stages of trial, and whether Hamdan could be charged with conspiracy before the commission. Id. at 2799-809. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Id. at 2810. Chief Justice Roberts did not take part, as he was a member of the D.C. Circuit panel that had heard the case below. Id. at 2799.
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
35648971995
-
The Ruling on Tribunals: The Overview; Justices, 5-3. Broadly Reject Bush Plan to Try Detainees
-
June 30, at
-
Linda Greenhouse, The Ruling on Tribunals: The Overview; Justices, 5-3. Broadly Reject Bush Plan to Try Detainees, N.Y. TIMES, June 30, 2006, at A1.
-
(2006)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Greenhouse, L.1
-
10
-
-
34047144773
-
-
For example, in the Hamdan decision itself, the majority opinion makes note of the adoption of a different evidentiary standard by the Executive: admissibility if the Presiding Officer believes that a particular piece of evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person. Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2807-08. However, in deciding that the President had not properly justified the deviations of the military commission procedures from those of courts-martial, the majority did not specifically address evidentiary standards, but instead spoke generally of the procedural distinctions. See id. at 2791-93 discussing the insufficient showing by the Bush administration of the impracticability of applying court-martial procedural rules in this context to justify the procedural deviations of the military commissions vis-à-vis traditional judicial fora
-
For example, in the Hamdan decision itself, the majority opinion makes note of the adoption of a different evidentiary standard by the Executive: admissibility if the Presiding Officer believes that a particular piece of evidence "would have probative value to a reasonable person." Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2807-08. However, in deciding that the President had not properly justified the deviations of the military commission procedures from those of courts-martial, the majority did not specifically address evidentiary standards, but instead spoke generally of the procedural distinctions. See id. at 2791-93 (discussing the insufficient showing by the Bush administration of the "impracticability" of applying court-martial procedural rules in this context to justify the procedural deviations of the military commissions vis-à-vis traditional judicial fora).
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
34047139743
-
-
The Military Rules of Evidence, applicable in military courts-martial, are for the most part based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. See James B. Roan & Cynthia Buxton, The American Military Justice System in the New Millennium, 52 A.F. L. REV. 185, 209 (2002).
-
The Military Rules of Evidence, applicable in military courts-martial, are for the most part based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. See James B. Roan & Cynthia Buxton, The American Military Justice System in the New Millennium, 52 A.F. L. REV. 185, 209 (2002).
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
34047141966
-
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(1) (2006).
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(1) (2006).
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
34047159059
-
-
Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2792.
-
Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2792.
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
84979108307
-
Evidence and Legal Theory, 47
-
William Twining, Evidence and Legal Theory, 47 MOD. L. REV. 261, 272 (1984).
-
(1984)
MOD. L. REV
, vol.261
, pp. 272
-
-
Twining, W.1
-
15
-
-
41449104337
-
Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof
-
117
-
Mirjan Damaska, Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof, 2 LAW, PROBABILITY & RISK 117, 123 (2003).
-
(2003)
LAW, PROBABILITY & RISK
, vol.2
, pp. 123
-
-
Damaska, M.1
-
16
-
-
34047098226
-
-
Vice President Dick Cheney, Remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Nov. 14, 2001) (transcript available in LEXIS, Federal News Service File) (emphasis added).
-
Vice President Dick Cheney, Remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Nov. 14, 2001) (transcript available in LEXIS, Federal News Service File) (emphasis added).
-
-
-
-
17
-
-
34047170132
-
-
The MCA's provisions for procedures and rules of evidence are found in Section 949a, entitled Rules. Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a (2006). Section 949a(a) authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, to prescribe the pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures for the commissions. The procedures are to apply the principles of law and rules of evidence used in courts-martial to the extent that the Secretary considers practicable or consistent with military or intelligence activities. Id. § 949a(a). Section 949a(b) is divided into subsection 949a(b)(1), which lists provisions that shall be included in the procedures and rules of evidence of military commissions by congressional mandate, and subsection 949a(b)(2), which lists provisions the Secretary of Defense may prescribe if she so chooses. Id. § 949a(b).
-
The MCA's provisions for procedures and rules of evidence are found in Section 949a, entitled "Rules." Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a (2006). Section 949a(a) authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, to prescribe the pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures for the commissions. The procedures are to apply the principles of law and rules of evidence used in courts-martial to the extent that "the Secretary considers practicable or consistent with military or intelligence activities." Id. § 949a(a). Section 949a(b) is divided into subsection 949a(b)(1), which lists provisions that "shall" be included in the procedures and rules of evidence of military commissions by congressional mandate, and subsection 949a(b)(2), which lists provisions the Secretary of Defense "may prescribe" if she so chooses. Id. § 949a(b). As discussed below, some of the rules of evidence that were originally promulgated by the Executive upon the establishment of the military commissions are found in subsection 949a(b)(2), which means Congress has now explicitly approved of its use through their passage of the MCA. See infra Part II.A.2.
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
34047150229
-
-
See U.S. DEP'T OF DEF., DIRECTIVE NO. 5500.17, ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE (JCS) ON MILITARY JUSTICE (May 3, 2003), available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/550017_050303/550017p.pdf;
-
See U.S. DEP'T OF DEF., DIRECTIVE NO. 5500.17, ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE (JCS) ON MILITARY JUSTICE (May 3, 2003), available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/550017_050303/550017p.pdf;
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
34047126191
-
-
see also, TIMES, Jan. 14, available at
-
see also Judith Resnik, Invading the Courts, LEGAL TIMES, Jan. 14, 2002, available at http://www.law.yale.edu/ news/3339.htm.
-
(2002)
Invading the Courts, LEGAL
-
-
Resnik, J.1
-
20
-
-
17644366521
-
After Terror, A Secret Rewriting of Military Law
-
Oct. 24, at
-
Tim Golden, After Terror, A Secret Rewriting of Military Law, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 24, 2004, at A1.
-
(2004)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Golden, T.1
-
21
-
-
34047121395
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
22
-
-
34047178228
-
-
See PHILIP B. HEYMANN & JULIETTE N. KAYYEM, PROTECTING LIBERTY IN AN AGE OF TERROR 55 (2005).
-
See PHILIP B. HEYMANN & JULIETTE N. KAYYEM, PROTECTING LIBERTY IN AN AGE OF TERROR 55 (2005).
-
-
-
-
23
-
-
34047165123
-
-
SERRIN TURNER & STEPHEN J. SCHULHOFER, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, THE SECRECY PROBLEM IN TERRORISM TRIALS 55 (2005), available at http://brennancenter.org/ secrecyproblem.pdf.
-
SERRIN TURNER & STEPHEN J. SCHULHOFER, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, THE SECRECY PROBLEM IN TERRORISM TRIALS 55 (2005), available at http://brennancenter.org/ secrecyproblem.pdf.
-
-
-
-
24
-
-
34047092645
-
-
HEYMANN & KAYYEM, supra note 21, at 55
-
HEYMANN & KAYYEM, supra note 21, at 55.
-
-
-
-
25
-
-
34047096200
-
-
The original regulations to govern military commissions were promulgated in 2002. See U.S. DEP'T OF DEF, MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1: PROCEDURES FOR TRIALS BY MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF CERTAIN NON-UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM (Mar. 21, 2002, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf [hereinafter MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2002, the original Military Commission Order No. 1, see also 32 C.F.R. §§ 9.1-9.12 2006, Procedures for Trials by Military Commissions of Certain Non-United States Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, as found in the Code of Federal Regulations, These were subsequently revised in August 2005
-
The original regulations to govern military commissions were promulgated in 2002. See U.S. DEP'T OF DEF., MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1: PROCEDURES FOR TRIALS BY MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF CERTAIN NON-UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM (Mar. 21, 2002), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf [hereinafter MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2002)] (the original Military Commission Order No. 1); see also 32 C.F.R. §§ 9.1-9.12 (2006) ("Procedures for Trials by Military Commissions of Certain Non-United States Citizens in the War Against Terrorism," as found in the Code of Federal Regulations). These were subsequently revised in August 2005.
-
-
-
-
26
-
-
34047186175
-
-
See U.S. DEP'T OF DEF., MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (Aug. 31, 2005) [hereinafter MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2005)] (revised procedures), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/ Sep2005/d20050902order.pdf.
-
See U.S. DEP'T OF DEF., MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (Aug. 31, 2005) [hereinafter MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2005)] (revised procedures), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/ Sep2005/d20050902order.pdf.
-
-
-
-
27
-
-
34047162761
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 55-56
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 55-56.
-
-
-
-
28
-
-
34047135913
-
-
Golden, supra note 19, at 12
-
Golden, supra note 19, at 12.
-
-
-
-
29
-
-
34047188365
-
-
See Crimes and Elements for Trials by Military Commission, 32 C.F.R. § 11 (2006).
-
See Crimes and Elements for Trials by Military Commission, 32 C.F.R. § 11 (2006).
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
34047169142
-
-
542 U.S. 507, 545 (2004) (Souter, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment).
-
542 U.S. 507, 545 (2004) (Souter, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment).
-
-
-
-
31
-
-
34047160821
-
-
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 2790 (2006) (interpreting Article 36 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
-
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 2790 (2006) (interpreting Article 36 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
34047144244
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
34047146797
-
-
Id. at 2791
-
Id. at 2791.
-
-
-
-
34
-
-
34047186823
-
-
Id, citing 10 U.S.C. § 836a, 2000, requiring that the rules the President promulgates for courts-martial, provost courts, and military commissions conform with Article III courts so far as he considers practical, emphasis added
-
Id. (citing 10 U.S.C. § 836(a) (2000) (requiring that the rules the President promulgates for courts-martial, provost courts, and military commissions conform with Article III courts "so far as he considers practical") (emphasis added)).
-
-
-
-
35
-
-
34047131535
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
36
-
-
34047139222
-
-
Uniform Code of Military Justice § 36(b, 10 U.S.C. § 836b, 2000
-
Uniform Code of Military Justice § 36(b), 10 U.S.C. § 836(b) (2000).
-
-
-
-
37
-
-
34047122459
-
-
Id. at 2791-92 (Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that it would be impracticable to apply court-martial rules in this case.); see also id. at 2791 n.51 (noting that such a presidential determination would be entitled to some deference, and agreeing with Justice Kennedy's assessment that the President's determination of the impracticality of the military commissions' procedural conformity with the rules for courts-martial would be accorded less deference than such a determination with regard to federal courts).
-
Id. at 2791-92 ("Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that it would be impracticable to apply court-martial rules in this case."); see also id. at 2791 n.51 (noting that such a presidential determination would be entitled to some deference, and agreeing with Justice Kennedy's assessment that the President's determination of the impracticality of the military commissions' procedural conformity with the rules for courts-martial would be accorded less deference than such a determination with regard to federal courts).
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
34047128997
-
-
Id. at 2792
-
Id. at 2792.
-
-
-
-
39
-
-
34047096696
-
-
Id. at 2801 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
-
Id. at 2801 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
-
-
-
-
40
-
-
34047177778
-
-
Id. at 2799 (Breyer, J., concurring).
-
Id. at 2799 (Breyer, J., concurring).
-
-
-
-
41
-
-
34047102242
-
-
Id. (Kennedy, J., concurring).
-
Id. (Kennedy, J., concurring).
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
34047104838
-
-
Proposed Legislation: Military Commissions Act of 2006, Message from The President of the United States transmitting A Draft of Proposed Legislation Entitled the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 109 H.R. Doc. No. 133 (2006). The text of the Bush proposal is available at http://www.law. georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf (last visited Oct. 22, 2006).
-
Proposed Legislation: Military Commissions Act of 2006, Message from The President of the United States transmitting A Draft of Proposed Legislation Entitled the "Military Commissions Act of 2006," 109 H.R. Doc. No. 133 (2006). The text of the Bush proposal is available at http://www.law. georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf (last visited Oct. 22, 2006).
-
-
-
-
43
-
-
34948854529
-
Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal
-
Sept. 8, at
-
Kate Zernike, Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 8, 2006, at A1.
-
(2006)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Zernike, K.1
-
44
-
-
34047169615
-
A Solution for Trials: Senators Have the Makings of a Fine Bill on Military Commissions - if they Have the Backbone to Stick with it
-
See, Sept. 9, at
-
See Editorial, A Solution for Trials: Senators Have the Makings of a Fine Bill on Military Commissions - if they Have the Backbone to Stick with it, WASH. POST, Sept. 9, 2006, at A16.
-
(2006)
WASH. POST
-
-
Editorial1
-
45
-
-
34047127952
-
Senators Defy Bush on Terror Measure: Panel Backs Rival Bill on Interrogations
-
See, Sept. 15, at
-
See Charles Babington & Jonathan Weisman, Senators Defy Bush on Terror Measure: Panel Backs Rival Bill on Interrogations, WASH. POST, Sept. 15, 2006, at A1;
-
(2006)
WASH. POST
-
-
Babington, C.1
Weisman, J.2
-
46
-
-
34047152104
-
-
Holly Manges Jones, Senate Committee Approves Military Commissions Bill Over Bush Objections, JURIST, Sept. 15, 2006, available at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/senate-committee-approves- military.php. The text of the Senate Armed Forces Committee bill is available at http://natseclaw.typepad.com/natseclaw/files/WarnerMcCainGrahamFINAL.pdf (last visited Oct. 22, 2006).
-
Holly Manges Jones, Senate Committee Approves Military Commissions Bill Over Bush Objections, JURIST, Sept. 15, 2006, available at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/senate-committee-approves- military.php. The text of the Senate Armed Forces Committee bill is available at http://natseclaw.typepad.com/natseclaw/files/WarnerMcCainGrahamFINAL.pdf (last visited Oct. 22, 2006).
-
-
-
-
47
-
-
34047101210
-
GOP Infighting on Detainees Intensifies: Bush Threatens to Halt CIA Program if Congress Passes Rival Proposal
-
See, Sept. 16, at
-
See Peter Baker, GOP Infighting on Detainees Intensifies: Bush Threatens to Halt CIA Program if Congress Passes Rival Proposal, WASH. POST, Sept. 16, 2006, at A1;
-
(2006)
WASH. POST
-
-
Baker, P.1
-
48
-
-
38149068569
-
Battle Over Tribunals Could Ruin GOP Strategy: Bush-McCain Standoff Upstages Electoral Fight
-
Sept. 17, at
-
Jonathan Weisman, Battle Over Tribunals Could Ruin GOP Strategy: Bush-McCain Standoff Upstages Electoral Fight, WASH. POST, Sept. 17, 2006, at A1.
-
(2006)
WASH. POST
-
-
Weisman, J.1
-
49
-
-
79957945720
-
Dissidents' Detainee Bill May Face Filibuster: Frist Warns GOP Opponents of Bush's Proposal They Must Accept Two Key Provisions
-
See, Sept. 20, at
-
See Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman, Dissidents' Detainee Bill May Face Filibuster: Frist Warns GOP Opponents of Bush's Proposal They Must Accept Two Key Provisions, WASH. POST, Sept. 20, 2006, at A4;
-
(2006)
WASH. POST
-
-
Babington, C.1
Weisman, J.2
-
50
-
-
84905606515
-
Detainee Deal Comes with Contradictions
-
Sept. 23, at
-
Adam Liptak, Detainee Deal Comes with Contradictions, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 23, 2006, at A1;
-
(2006)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Liptak, A.1
-
51
-
-
34047141964
-
White House Gains Concessions in Senate Measure on Tribunals
-
Sept. 12, at
-
R. Jeffrey Smith, White House Gains Concessions in Senate Measure on Tribunals, WASH. POST, Sept. 12, 2006, at A17;
-
(2006)
WASH. POST
-
-
Jeffrey Smith, R.1
-
52
-
-
34047179823
-
Crucial Senator Says a Few Problems Remain in Bill on Terror Tribunals
-
Sept. 9, at
-
Kate Zernike, Crucial Senator Says a Few Problems Remain in Bill on Terror Tribunals, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 9, 2006, at A10.
-
(2006)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Zernike, K.1
-
53
-
-
34047172888
-
GOP Leaders Back Bush on Wiretapping, Tribunals
-
Sept. 14, at
-
Jonathan Weisman, GOP Leaders Back Bush on Wiretapping, Tribunals, WASH. POST, Sept. 14, 2006, at A13.
-
(2006)
WASH. POST
-
-
Weisman, J.1
-
54
-
-
70350006535
-
Senate Approves Broad New Rules to Try Detainees
-
Sept. 29, at
-
Kate Zernike, Senate Approves Broad New Rules to Try Detainees, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 29, 2006, at A1.
-
(2006)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Zernike, K.1
-
56
-
-
34047108977
-
-
RONALD J. ALLEN, JOSEPH L. HOFFMAN, DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON & WILLIAM J. STUNTZ, COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1311 (2d. ed 2005); see also U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2 ([T]he Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the state where the said Crimes shall have been committed.); U.S. CONST. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.).
-
RONALD J. ALLEN, JOSEPH L. HOFFMAN, DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON & WILLIAM J. STUNTZ, COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1311 (2d. ed 2005); see also U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2 ("[T]he Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the state where the said Crimes shall have been committed."); U.S. CONST. amend. VI ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.").
-
-
-
-
57
-
-
34047136413
-
-
See FED. R. CRIM. P. 23(b)(1).
-
See FED. R. CRIM. P. 23(b)(1).
-
-
-
-
58
-
-
34047182420
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 49
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 49.
-
-
-
-
59
-
-
84963456897
-
-
note 4 and accompanying text
-
See supra note 4 and accompanying text.
-
See supra
-
-
-
60
-
-
34047187318
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 50; see also Uniform Code of Military Justice §§ 1-146, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946 (2000).
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 50; see also Uniform Code of Military Justice §§ 1-146, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946 (2000).
-
-
-
-
61
-
-
0032398021
-
-
John S. Cooke, The Twenty-Sixth Annual Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture: Manual for Courts-Martial 20X, 156 MIL. L. REV. 1, 8-9 (1998).
-
John S. Cooke, The Twenty-Sixth Annual Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture: Manual for Courts-Martial 20X, 156 MIL. L. REV. 1, 8-9 (1998).
-
-
-
-
62
-
-
34047105007
-
-
§ 825(d)1
-
10 U.S.C. § 825(d)(1).
-
10 U.S.C
-
-
-
66
-
-
34047186824
-
-
FED. R. CRIM. P. 23(b)(1).
-
FED. R. CRIM. P. 23(b)(1).
-
-
-
-
67
-
-
34047176756
-
-
§§ 816(1)(A, 825a
-
10 U.S.C. §§ 816(1)(A), 825(a).
-
10 U.S.C
-
-
-
70
-
-
34047179825
-
-
Id. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1).
-
Id. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1).
-
-
-
-
71
-
-
34047116176
-
-
Id. §§ 941-942(a), (b)(2). Defendants have an automatic right to appeal to an intermediate appellate court staffed by military judges. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is required to review any capital case and any case whose review is requested by the prosecution. Review as a result of a defendant's request is discretionary. Id.
-
Id. §§ 941-942(a), (b)(2). Defendants have an automatic right to appeal to an intermediate appellate court staffed by military judges. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is required to review any capital case and any case whose review is requested by the prosecution. Review as a result of a defendant's request is discretionary. Id.
-
-
-
-
72
-
-
34047190145
-
-
Id. § 852(a)(2), (b)(2).
-
Id. § 852(a)(2), (b)(2).
-
-
-
-
74
-
-
34047175732
-
-
See Presidential Military Order No. 1, supra note 1, § 4(c)(3); MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2002), supra note 24, § 6(D)(1).
-
See Presidential Military Order No. 1, supra note 1, § 4(c)(3); MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2002), supra note 24, § 6(D)(1).
-
-
-
-
75
-
-
34047133615
-
-
See Presidential Military Order No. 1, supra note 1, § 4(c)(2) (military commissions as a whole shall sit as triers of both facts and law).
-
See Presidential Military Order No. 1, supra note 1, § 4(c)(2) (military commissions as a whole shall sit "as triers of both facts and law").
-
-
-
-
76
-
-
34047092644
-
-
MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2002), supra note 24, §§ 4(A)(3)-(4) (qualifications for military commission officers include that member be commissioned officer of armed forces, whereas presiding officers are to be judge advocates).
-
MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2002), supra note 24, §§ 4(A)(3)-(4) (qualifications for military commission officers include that member be commissioned officer of armed forces, whereas presiding officers are to be judge advocates).
-
-
-
-
77
-
-
23044531819
-
Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence, 87
-
Ronald J. Allen & Brian Leiter, Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence, 87 VA. L. REV. 1491, 1502 (2001)
-
(2001)
VA. L. REV
, vol.1491
, pp. 1502
-
-
Allen, R.J.1
Leiter, B.2
-
78
-
-
34047103234
-
-
(citing Brian Leiter, The Epistemology of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Evidence, 1997 BYU L. REV. 803, 914-15).
-
(citing Brian Leiter, The Epistemology of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Evidence, 1997 BYU L. REV. 803, 914-15).
-
-
-
-
80
-
-
34047167784
-
-
See U.S. DEP'T OF DEF., CHANGES TO MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES (2005), available at http://www.dod.mil/news/Aug2005/d20050831fact.pdf;
-
See U.S. DEP'T OF DEF., CHANGES TO MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES (2005), available at http://www.dod.mil/news/Aug2005/d20050831fact.pdf;
-
-
-
-
81
-
-
34047100162
-
-
MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2005), supra note 24, § 4(A)(5)(a).
-
MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2005), supra note 24, § 4(A)(5)(a).
-
-
-
-
82
-
-
34047105577
-
-
See MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2005), supra note 24, §§ 4(A)(5), 6(D)(1).
-
See MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1 (2005), supra note 24, §§ 4(A)(5), 6(D)(1).
-
-
-
-
83
-
-
34047114262
-
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 948jb, 2006
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 948j(b) (2006).
-
-
-
-
86
-
-
34047167785
-
-
32 C.F.R. §§ 9.2, 9.4.
-
32 C.F.R. §§ 9.2, 9.4.
-
-
-
-
87
-
-
34047111558
-
-
Id. § 9.6(f).
-
Id. § 9.6(f).
-
-
-
-
88
-
-
34047141965
-
-
Id. § 9.6(f)-(g).
-
Id. § 9.6(f)-(g).
-
-
-
-
89
-
-
34047126189
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 58
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 58.
-
-
-
-
90
-
-
34047154300
-
-
§§ 948h-948i
-
10 U.S.C.A. §§ 948h-948i.
-
10 U.S.C.A
-
-
-
95
-
-
34047110058
-
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(1) (2006) (emphasis added).
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(1) (2006) (emphasis added).
-
-
-
-
96
-
-
34047150228
-
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(2).
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(2).
-
-
-
-
97
-
-
34047149191
-
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(3).
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(3).
-
-
-
-
98
-
-
34047169616
-
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(2)(i).
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(2)(i).
-
-
-
-
99
-
-
34047102742
-
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(2)(ii).
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(2)(ii).
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
34047104305
-
-
Compare id. § 9.6(d)(2) with id. § 9.6(d)(3).
-
Compare id. § 9.6(d)(2) with id. § 9.6(d)(3).
-
-
-
-
101
-
-
34047096697
-
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949aa, 2006
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a(a) (2006).
-
-
-
-
102
-
-
84963456897
-
-
notes 29-36 and accompanying text
-
See supra notes 29-36 and accompanying text.
-
See supra
-
-
-
103
-
-
34047152103
-
-
§ 949a(b)2
-
10 U.S.C.A. § 949a(b)(2).
-
10 U.S.C.A
-
-
-
104
-
-
34047107070
-
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(2)(iv).
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(2)(iv).
-
-
-
-
105
-
-
34047092126
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
106
-
-
34047113734
-
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(i).
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(i).
-
-
-
-
107
-
-
34047108134
-
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(ii).
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(ii).
-
-
-
-
108
-
-
34047175731
-
-
Id. §§ 9.6(b)(3), 9.6(d)(5)(iii).
-
Id. §§ 9.6(b)(3), 9.6(d)(5)(iii).
-
-
-
-
109
-
-
34047146304
-
-
Id. § 9.9
-
Id. § 9.9.
-
-
-
-
110
-
-
34047182942
-
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949d(f)1, 2006
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949d(f)(1) (2006).
-
-
-
-
113
-
-
0032037356
-
Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process, 107
-
Scott Brewer, Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process, 107 YALE L.J. 1535, 1540-41 (1998).
-
(1998)
YALE L.J
, vol.1535
, pp. 1540-1541
-
-
Brewer, S.1
-
114
-
-
34047093166
-
-
Id. at 1542
-
Id. at 1542.
-
-
-
-
117
-
-
34047140689
-
-
Susan Haack, Epistemology Legalized: Or, Truth, Justice, and The American Way, 49 AM. J. JURIS. 43, 43 (2004).
-
Susan Haack, Epistemology Legalized: Or, Truth, Justice, and The American Way, 49 AM. J. JURIS. 43, 43 (2004).
-
-
-
-
118
-
-
34047185662
-
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.1 (2006).
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.1 (2006).
-
-
-
-
119
-
-
34047166785
-
-
See
-
See FED. R. EVID. 401-403;
-
, vol.401-403
-
-
EVID., F.R.1
-
120
-
-
34047158001
-
-
MIL. R. EVID. 401-403.
-
, vol.401-403
-
-
EVID., M.R.1
-
121
-
-
34047163824
-
-
Brewer, supra note 104, at 1544 (quoting FED. R. EVID. 401).
-
Brewer, supra note 104, at 1544 (quoting FED. R. EVID. 401).
-
-
-
-
122
-
-
34047140692
-
-
Id. (quoting FED. R. EVID. 403).
-
Id. (quoting FED. R. EVID. 403).
-
-
-
-
123
-
-
34047151120
-
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(1) (2006).
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(1) (2006).
-
-
-
-
124
-
-
34047146303
-
-
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1240 (8th ed. 2004) (defining probative).
-
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1240 (8th ed. 2004) (defining "probative").
-
-
-
-
125
-
-
84963456897
-
-
note 94 and accompanying text
-
See supra note 94 and accompanying text.
-
See supra
-
-
-
126
-
-
34047128472
-
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a(b)(2)F, 2006
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a(b)(2)(F) (2006).
-
-
-
-
127
-
-
34047122980
-
-
Compare id., with FED. R. EVID. 403, and MIL. R. EVID. 403.
-
Compare id., with FED. R. EVID. 403, and MIL. R. EVID. 403.
-
-
-
-
128
-
-
34047135394
-
-
Haack, supra note 107, at 56
-
Haack, supra note 107, at 56.
-
-
-
-
129
-
-
34047165674
-
-
1 RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE 1 Garland Publishing, Inc
-
JEREMY BENTHAM, 1 RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE 1 (Garland Publishing, Inc. 1978) (1827);
-
(1827)
-
-
BENTHAM, J.1
-
130
-
-
34047138753
-
-
see also JEREMY BENTHAM, 4 RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE 490 (Garland Publishing, Inc. 1978) (1827) (Evidence is the basis of justice: to exclude evidence, is to exclude justice.).
-
see also JEREMY BENTHAM, 4 RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE 490 (Garland Publishing, Inc. 1978) (1827) ("Evidence is the basis of justice: to exclude evidence, is to exclude justice.").
-
-
-
-
131
-
-
34047154299
-
-
Haack, supra note 107, at 58 emphasis added
-
Haack, supra note 107, at 58 (emphasis added).
-
-
-
-
132
-
-
34047155411
-
-
Id. at 61
-
Id. at 61.
-
-
-
-
133
-
-
34047129517
-
-
See, e.g., Craig R. Callen, Rationality and Relevancy: Conditional Relevancy and Constrained Resources, 2003 MICH. ST. L. REV. 1243, 1244, 1259-66 (2003);
-
See, e.g., Craig R. Callen, Rationality and Relevancy: Conditional Relevancy and Constrained Resources, 2003 MICH. ST. L. REV. 1243, 1244, 1259-66 (2003);
-
-
-
-
134
-
-
0346515486
-
-
Richard A. Posner, An Economic Approach to the Law of Evidence, 51 STAN. L. REV. 1477, 1523-24 (1999) (noting that there are two types of costs in a factfinder's assessment of evidence, in addition to waste of time and material resources: (1) emotionality, cognitive illusions and emotional distractions, the domain of irrational thinking; and (2) cognitive overload, or confusion).
-
Richard A. Posner, An Economic Approach to the Law of Evidence, 51 STAN. L. REV. 1477, 1523-24 (1999) (noting that there are two types of costs in a factfinder's assessment of evidence, in addition to waste of time and material resources: (1) "emotionality," "cognitive illusions and emotional distractions, the domain of irrational thinking"; and (2) "cognitive overload," or "confusion").
-
-
-
-
135
-
-
34047140693
-
-
Callen, supra note 121, at 1278
-
Callen, supra note 121, at 1278.
-
-
-
-
136
-
-
34047127205
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
137
-
-
34047125142
-
-
See, e.g., BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1294 (8th ed. 2004) (defining reasonable person as [a] hypothetical person used as a legal standard . . . who exercises the degree of attention, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and others' interests).
-
See, e.g., BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1294 (8th ed. 2004) (defining "reasonable person" as "[a] hypothetical person used as a legal standard . . . who exercises the degree of attention, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and others' interests").
-
-
-
-
138
-
-
34047180913
-
-
Others have discussed the problems with the use of reasonableness as a standard. See, e.g., HENRY M. HART, JR. & ALBERT M. SACKS, THE LEGAL PROCESS: BASIC PROBLEMS IN THE MAKING AND APPLICATION OF LAW 1415 (tentative ed. 1958) ([The court] should assume . . . that the legislature was made up of reasonable persons pursuing reasonable purposes reasonably.);
-
Others have discussed the problems with the use of " reasonableness" as a standard. See, e.g., HENRY M. HART, JR. & ALBERT M. SACKS, THE LEGAL PROCESS: BASIC PROBLEMS IN THE MAKING AND APPLICATION OF LAW 1415 (tentative ed. 1958) ("[The court] should assume . . . that the legislature was made up of reasonable persons pursuing reasonable purposes reasonably.");
-
-
-
-
139
-
-
84976003634
-
-
Larry Alexander, Reconsidering the Relationship Among Voluntary Acts, Strict Liability, and Negligence in Criminal Law, SOC. PHIL. & POL'Y, Spring 1990, at 84, 85 (The concept of the [reasonable person] . . . is a morally arbitrary and morally empty construct.).
-
Larry Alexander, Reconsidering the Relationship Among Voluntary Acts, Strict Liability, and Negligence in Criminal Law, SOC. PHIL. & POL'Y, Spring 1990, at 84, 85 ("The concept of the [reasonable person] . . . is a morally arbitrary and morally empty construct.").
-
-
-
-
142
-
-
34047124593
-
-
2 The Tokyo Judgment, Opinion by Judge Pal 654-55 (Amsterdam Press 1977) [hereinafter Pal Opinion] (quoting President Webb).
-
2 The Tokyo Judgment, Opinion by Judge Pal 654-55 (Amsterdam Press 1977) [hereinafter Pal Opinion] (quoting President Webb).
-
-
-
-
143
-
-
34047105580
-
-
See id
-
See id.
-
-
-
-
144
-
-
34047098603
-
-
See Motion to Pre-Admit Evidence, United States v. Hamdan, No. CIVA.A.04-1519 JR. (D.D.C Oct. 1, 2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/d20041006motion.pdf;
-
See Motion to Pre-Admit Evidence, United States v. Hamdan, No. CIVA.A.04-1519 JR. (D.D.C Oct. 1, 2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/d20041006motion.pdf;
-
-
-
-
145
-
-
34047166786
-
-
Defense Response to Government's Motion to Pre-Admit Evidence, United States v. Hamdan, No. CIVA.A.04-1519 JR. (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/d20041022admit.pdf.
-
Defense Response to Government's Motion to Pre-Admit Evidence, United States v. Hamdan, No. CIVA.A.04-1519 JR. (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/d20041022admit.pdf.
-
-
-
-
146
-
-
34047170131
-
-
The Confrontation Clause provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The Clause has been described by the Supreme Court as a bedrock procedural guarantee in both federal and state prosecutions. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 (2004).
-
The Confrontation Clause provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The Clause has been described by the Supreme Court as a "bedrock procedural guarantee" in both federal and state prosecutions. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 (2004).
-
-
-
-
147
-
-
34047148704
-
-
Crawford, 541 U.S. at 50.
-
Crawford, 541 U.S. at 50.
-
-
-
-
148
-
-
34047164343
-
In Crawford, Justice Scalia noted the historical origins of the common-law right to confrontation and noted that the practice of ex parte examination was the one that the Crown deployed in notorious treason cases like Raleigh's; that the Marian statutes invited; that English law's assertion of a right to confrontation was meant to prohibit; and that the founding-era rhetoric decried
-
Id
-
Id. In Crawford, Justice Scalia noted the historical origins of the common-law right to confrontation and noted that the practice of ex parte examination was the one "that the Crown deployed in notorious treason cases like Raleigh's; that the Marian statutes invited; that English law's assertion of a right to confrontation was meant to prohibit; and that the founding-era rhetoric decried. The Sixth Amendment must be interpreted with this focus in mind." Id.
-
The Sixth Amendment must be interpreted with this focus in mind
-
-
-
149
-
-
34047181890
-
-
Id. at 50-51
-
Id. at 50-51.
-
-
-
-
150
-
-
34047130541
-
-
Id. at 51
-
Id. at 51.
-
-
-
-
151
-
-
34047126190
-
-
Id. at 68
-
Id. at 68.
-
-
-
-
152
-
-
34047106088
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
153
-
-
34047191711
-
-
Id. at 61
-
Id. at 61.
-
-
-
-
154
-
-
34047098225
-
-
Compare United States v. Verdugo-Uriquez, 494 U.S. 259, 269 (1990) (extraterritorial application of Fifth Amendment has been emphatic[ally] rejected) with Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 483 n.15 (2004) (Petitioners' allegations - that, although they have engaged neither in combat nor in acts of terrorism against the United States, they have been held in Executive detention for more than two years in territory subject to the long-term, exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States, without access to counsel and without being charged with any wrongdoing - unquestionably describe 'custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.').
-
Compare United States v. Verdugo-Uriquez, 494 U.S. 259, 269 (1990) (extraterritorial application of Fifth Amendment has been "emphatic[ally] rejected") with Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 483 n.15 (2004) ("Petitioners' allegations - that, although they have engaged neither in combat nor in acts of terrorism against the United States, they have been held in Executive detention for more than two years in territory subject to the long-term, exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States, without access to counsel and without being charged with any wrongdoing - unquestionably describe 'custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'").
-
-
-
-
155
-
-
34047144772
-
-
See
-
See FED. R. EVID. 802;
-
, vol.802
-
-
EVID., F.R.1
-
157
-
-
34047173875
-
-
See 36 CF.R. § 9.6(d) (2006).
-
See 36 CF.R. § 9.6(d) (2006).
-
-
-
-
158
-
-
34047119496
-
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a(b)(2)(E)i, 2006, As noted above, the Secretary of Defense has yet to promulgate evidentiary rules for military commissions, but this provision is endorsed by Congress
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a(b)(2)(E)(i) (2006). As noted above, the Secretary of Defense has yet to promulgate evidentiary rules for military commissions, but this provision is endorsed by Congress.
-
-
-
-
161
-
-
34047143590
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 68
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 68.
-
-
-
-
162
-
-
34047190687
-
-
As described by Damaska: [S]trictures against the use of derivative proof are by no means unique to the common law culture; restriction on its use existed on the Continent of Europe long before Anglo-American law of evidence first made its appearance. Even today, although continental justice is conducive to the admission of hearsay, courts recognize the weaknesses of derivative proof and generate restrictions on its free use. Mirjan Damaska, Of Hearsay and Its Analogues, 76 MINN. L. REV. 425, 456-57 (1992).
-
As described by Damaska: [S]trictures against the use of derivative proof are by no means unique to the common law culture; restriction on its use existed on the Continent of Europe long before Anglo-American law of evidence first made its appearance. Even today, although continental justice is conducive to the admission of hearsay, courts recognize the weaknesses of derivative proof and generate restrictions on its free use. Mirjan Damaska, Of Hearsay and Its Analogues, 76 MINN. L. REV. 425, 456-57 (1992).
-
-
-
-
163
-
-
34047099629
-
-
Damaska further notes that: [C]ontinental attitudes to derivative proof [i.e., hearsay] were shaped by the confluence of factors pertaining to the structure of the tribunal, the episodic style of proceedings, and control over factfinding. As a result of the synergetic operation of these factors, the weaknesses of derivative proof and the best hygiene for combating them are still seen on the Continent in a somewhat different light than in Anglo-American countries. Id. at 434.
-
Damaska further notes that: [C]ontinental attitudes to derivative proof [i.e., hearsay] were shaped by the confluence of factors pertaining to the structure of the tribunal, the episodic style of proceedings, and control over factfinding. As a result of the synergetic operation of these factors, the weaknesses of derivative proof and the best hygiene for combating them are still seen on the Continent in a somewhat different light than in Anglo-American countries. Id. at 434.
-
-
-
-
164
-
-
34047133614
-
-
For example, Eleanor Swift suggests that courts should admit hearsay if parties can present foundational facts that allow factfinders to evaluate the evidence intelligently. Under her proposal, a party may introduce hearsay through a process foundation witness who describes the circumstances in which the declarant perceived, remembered, and spoke, in order to allow the factfinder to evaluate the candor, ambiguity, perception, and memory of the declarant. See Eleanor Swift, A Foundation Fact Approach to Hearsay, 75 CAL. L. REV. 1339, 1355-57 (1987).
-
For example, Eleanor Swift suggests that courts should admit hearsay if parties can present "foundational facts" that allow factfinders to evaluate the evidence intelligently. Under her proposal, a party may introduce hearsay through a "process foundation witness" who describes the circumstances in which the declarant "perceived, remembered, and spoke," in order to allow the factfinder to evaluate the candor, ambiguity, perception, and memory of the declarant. See Eleanor Swift, A Foundation Fact Approach to Hearsay, 75 CAL. L. REV. 1339, 1355-57 (1987).
-
-
-
-
165
-
-
34047121071
-
-
Roger Park suggests that given the informational asymmetries and process-based concerns of statements derived through the exercise of state power, interstitial change and not radical reform is appropriate in the criminal context. See Roger Park, A Subject Matter Approach to Hearsay Reform, 86 MICH. L. REV. 51, 88-104 1987
-
Roger Park suggests that given the informational asymmetries and process-based concerns of statements derived through the exercise of state power, "interstitial change" and not "radical reform" is appropriate in the criminal context. See Roger Park, A Subject Matter Approach to Hearsay Reform, 86 MICH. L. REV. 51, 88-104 (1987).
-
-
-
-
166
-
-
34047191710
-
Post-Modern Hearsay Reform: The Importance of Complexity, 76
-
Christopher B. Mueller, Post-Modern Hearsay Reform: The Importance of Complexity, 76 MINN. L. REV. 367, 382 (1992).
-
(1992)
MINN. L. REV
, vol.367
, pp. 382
-
-
Mueller, C.B.1
-
167
-
-
34047143046
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 66
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 66.
-
-
-
-
168
-
-
34047148703
-
-
See Defense Response to Government's Motion to Pre-Admit Evidence, supra note 130, at 3
-
See Defense Response to Government's Motion to Pre-Admit Evidence, supra note 130, at 3.
-
-
-
-
169
-
-
34047159058
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 66
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 66.
-
-
-
-
171
-
-
34047152102
-
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 948lb, 2006
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 948l(b) (2006).
-
-
-
-
172
-
-
0346615760
-
Hearsay Hazards in the American Criminal Trial: An Adversary-Oriented Approach, 49
-
Gordon Van Kessel, Hearsay Hazards in the American Criminal Trial: An Adversary-Oriented Approach, 49 HASTINGS L.J. 477, 503 (1998).
-
(1998)
HASTINGS L.J
, vol.477
, pp. 503
-
-
Van Kessel, G.1
-
173
-
-
34047184090
-
-
Id. at 503-04
-
Id. at 503-04.
-
-
-
-
174
-
-
34047141446
-
-
For example, Van Kessel notes that the Supreme Court, [e]xcept in limited contexts such as police-conducted, post-accusation eye-witness identifications and in-custody interrogations of suspects, has not imposed even minimal Constitutional protections governing the creation of witness statements. The burden of regulation of this concern is thus placed upon the prohibition of hearsay and other related evidentiary rules. Id. This suggests that enhancing constitutional guarantees would be one possible way to regulate this concern.
-
For example, Van Kessel notes that the Supreme Court, "[e]xcept in limited contexts such as police-conducted, post-accusation eye-witness identifications and in-custody interrogations of suspects," has not "imposed even minimal Constitutional protections governing the creation of witness statements." The burden of regulation of this concern is thus placed upon the prohibition of hearsay and other related evidentiary rules. Id. This suggests that enhancing constitutional guarantees would be one possible way to regulate this concern.
-
-
-
-
175
-
-
34047111557
-
-
Mueller, supra note 149, at 394
-
Mueller, supra note 149, at 394.
-
-
-
-
176
-
-
34047175730
-
-
Van Kessel, supra note 155, at 507
-
Van Kessel, supra note 155, at 507.
-
-
-
-
177
-
-
34047169614
-
-
Id. at 509
-
Id. at 509.
-
-
-
-
178
-
-
34047105010
-
-
quoting Lord Abinger
-
Id. (quoting Lord Abinger).
-
-
-
-
179
-
-
34047104303
-
Judicial Discretion in the Admission of Evidence Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, 79
-
Jon R. Waltz, Judicial Discretion in the Admission of Evidence Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, 79 NW. U. L. REV. 1097, 1097 (1985).
-
(1985)
NW. U. L. REV
, vol.1097
, pp. 1097
-
-
Waltz, J.R.1
-
180
-
-
84963456897
-
-
note 69 and accompanying text
-
See supra note 69 and accompanying text.
-
See supra
-
-
-
181
-
-
34047173380
-
-
See Allen & Leiter, supra note 70, at 1502 (Primary epistemic rules take into account the epistemic shortcomings of jurors, such as their susceptibility to confusion and prejudice or their generally modest level of intellectual ability. Secondary epistemic rules take into account the epistemic shortcomings of judges, such as their general lack of expertise in scientific matters.).
-
See Allen & Leiter, supra note 70, at 1502 ("Primary epistemic rules take into account the epistemic shortcomings of jurors, such as their susceptibility to confusion and prejudice or their generally modest level of intellectual ability. Secondary epistemic rules take into account the epistemic shortcomings of judges, such as their general lack of expertise in scientific matters.").
-
-
-
-
182
-
-
34047094214
-
-
Van Kessel, supra note 155, at 512
-
Van Kessel, supra note 155, at 512.
-
-
-
-
183
-
-
34047165124
-
-
Id. at 512-13
-
Id. at 512-13.
-
-
-
-
184
-
-
84963456897
-
-
notes 87-91 and accompanying text
-
See supra notes 87-91 and accompanying text.
-
See supra
-
-
-
185
-
-
34047136949
-
Justices Let U.S. Transfer Padilla to Civilian Custody
-
Jan. 5, at
-
Linda Greenhouse, Justices Let U.S. Transfer Padilla to Civilian Custody, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 5, 2006, at A22.
-
(2006)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Greenhouse, L.1
-
186
-
-
34047152637
-
-
The government has run into problems in its prosecution of Padilla in Miami. United States District Court Judge Marcia Cooke has dismissed the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla as being impermissibly duplicative of the other two conspiracy charges, and in so doing took the death penalty off the table. Judge Cooke, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, has characterized the government's case as light on facts. See United States v. Jose Padilla, No. 04 Cr. 60001, 2006 WL 2415946 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2006, dismissing count 1 of the indictment, which charged Padilla with a conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign country in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)1, 2000, Dan Eggen, Padilla Case Raises Questions About Anti-Terror Tactics, WASH. POST, Nov. 19, 2006, at A3;
-
The government has run into problems in its prosecution of Padilla in Miami. United States District Court Judge Marcia Cooke has dismissed the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla as being impermissibly duplicative of the other two conspiracy charges, and in so doing took the death penalty off the table. Judge Cooke, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, has characterized the government's case as "light on facts." See United States v. Jose Padilla, No. 04 Cr. 60001, 2006 WL 2415946 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2006) (dismissing count 1 of the indictment, which charged Padilla with a conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign country in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1) (2000)); Dan Eggen, Padilla Case Raises Questions About Anti-Terror Tactics, WASH. POST., Nov. 19, 2006, at A3;
-
-
-
-
187
-
-
34047153164
-
-
see also, HERALD, Sept. 15, available at
-
see also Jay Weaver, Terror Conspiracy Trial Faces Delay, MIAMI HERALD, Sept. 15, 2006, available at http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/15 522682.htm.
-
(2006)
Terror Conspiracy Trial Faces Delay, MIAMI
-
-
Weaver, J.1
-
188
-
-
34047132064
-
-
Padilla v. Bush, 233 F. Supp. 2d 564, 572 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing the Mobbs Declaration as a source that the government argued was sufficient to establish enemy combatant status); see Declaration of Michael H. Mobbs, Special Advisor to the Under Sec'y of Def. for Policy (Aug. 27, 2002), available at http://www.cnss.org/Mobbs%20Declaration.pdf.
-
Padilla v. Bush, 233 F. Supp. 2d 564, 572 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing the Mobbs Declaration as a source that the government argued was sufficient to establish enemy combatant status); see Declaration of Michael H. Mobbs, Special Advisor to the Under Sec'y of Def. for Policy (Aug. 27, 2002), available at http://www.cnss.org/Mobbs%20Declaration.pdf.
-
-
-
-
189
-
-
34047094733
-
-
Mobbs, supra note 170, at 1-3
-
Mobbs, supra note 170, at 1-3.
-
-
-
-
190
-
-
34047173381
-
-
Id. at 2, n.1
-
Id. at 2, n.1.
-
-
-
-
191
-
-
34047190144
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
192
-
-
34047170644
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
193
-
-
34047160289
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
194
-
-
84887668759
-
Shift on Suspect is Linked to Role of Qaeda Figures
-
Nov. 24, at
-
Douglas Jehl & Eric Lichtblau, Shift on Suspect is Linked to Role of Qaeda Figures, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 24, 2005, at A1.
-
(2005)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Jehl, D.1
Lichtblau, E.2
-
195
-
-
34047188877
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
196
-
-
34047137727
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 6
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 6.
-
-
-
-
197
-
-
34047189601
-
-
See GERALD POSNER, WHY AMERICA SLEPT 185-87 (2003) (describing the reward-and-punishment technique of interrogation);
-
See GERALD POSNER, WHY AMERICA SLEPT 185-87 (2003) (describing the "reward-and-punishment" technique of interrogation);
-
-
-
-
198
-
-
34047110589
-
-
see also David Johnston, At a Secret Interrogation, Dispute Flared over Tactics, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 10, 2006, at 1 (describing how CIA interrogators used aggressive and coercive interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects, over the objection of FBI agents).
-
see also David Johnston, At a Secret Interrogation, Dispute Flared over Tactics, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 10, 2006, at 1 (describing how CIA interrogators used "aggressive" and coercive interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects, over the objection of FBI agents).
-
-
-
-
199
-
-
34047092125
-
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 949a(b)(2)(E)(i, 949jc, 2006
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 949a(b)(2)(E)(i), 949j(c) (2006).
-
-
-
-
203
-
-
34047096201
-
-
See Defense Response to Government's Motion to Pre-Admit Evidence, supra note 130, at 2
-
See Defense Response to Government's Motion to Pre-Admit Evidence, supra note 130, at 2.
-
-
-
-
204
-
-
34047182421
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
205
-
-
34047092123
-
Broad Use of Harsh Tactics is Described at Cuba Base
-
See, e.g, Oct. 17, at
-
See, e.g., Neil A. Lewis, Broad Use of Harsh Tactics is Described at Cuba Base, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 17, 2004, at A1;
-
(2004)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Lewis, N.A.1
-
206
-
-
34047175209
-
Fresh Details Emerge on Harsh Methods at Guantanamo
-
Jan. 1, at
-
Neil A. Lewis, Fresh Details Emerge on Harsh Methods at Guantanamo, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 1, 2005, at A11;
-
(2005)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Lewis, N.A.1
-
207
-
-
34047166241
-
Abuse
-
CNN, Dec. 8
-
FBI Reports Guantanamo "Abuse," CNN, Dec. 8, 2004, http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/.
-
(2004)
FBI Reports Guantanamo
-
-
-
208
-
-
34047165673
-
-
See Van Kessel, supra note 155, at 509
-
See Van Kessel, supra note 155, at 509.
-
-
-
-
209
-
-
84888494968
-
-
text accompanying notes 181-183
-
See supra text accompanying notes 181-183.
-
See supra
-
-
-
210
-
-
34047181889
-
Amnesty Int'l, Guantánamo: Military commissions - Amnesty International observer's notes, No. 3
-
Public Statement, Nov. 9, available at
-
Public Statement, Amnesty Int'l, Guantánamo: Military commissions - Amnesty International observer's notes, No. 3 - Proceedings suspended following order by US federal judge (Nov. 9, 2004), available at http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511572004.
-
(2004)
Proceedings suspended following order by US federal judge
-
-
-
211
-
-
34047122461
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
212
-
-
84886342665
-
-
text accompanying note 105
-
See supra text accompanying note 105.
-
See supra
-
-
-
214
-
-
34047126188
-
-
see also Donald H. Rumsfeld & Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Sec'y of Def, Prepared Statement: Senate Armed Services Committee Military Commissions Dec. 12, 2001, available at http://www.defenselink. mil/speeches/2001/s20011212-depsecdef2.html, B]y using military commissions, we can better protect civilian judges, jurors and courts from terrorist threats and assure the security of the trial itself, Rumsfeld further explained: [M]ilitary commissions can allow the use of classified information without endangering sources and methods. This point is critical. During the course of a civilian trial, prosecutors could be faced with a situation where, in order to secure a conviction, they would have to use classified information that would expose how the U.S. monitors terrorist activities and communications. They could be forced to allow terrorists to go free, or offer them lighter sentences, in order to protect a source that is critical to our national se
-
see also Donald H. Rumsfeld & Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Sec'y of Def., Prepared Statement: Senate Armed Services Committee "Military Commissions" (Dec. 12, 2001), available at http://www.defenselink. mil/speeches/2001/s20011212-depsecdef2.html ("[B]y using military commissions, we can better protect civilian judges, jurors and courts from terrorist threats and assure the security of the trial itself."). Rumsfeld further explained: [M]ilitary commissions can allow the use of classified information without endangering sources and methods. This point is critical. During the course of a civilian trial, prosecutors could be faced with a situation where, in order to secure a conviction, they would have to use classified information that would expose how the U.S. monitors terrorist activities and communications. They could be forced to allow terrorists to go free, or offer them lighter sentences, in order to protect a source that is critical to our national security. Do we really want to be in the position of choosing between a successful prosecution of an al-Qaeda terrorist, and revealing intelligence information that, if exposed, could reduce our ability to stop the next terrorist attack - at a cost of thousands more American lives? A military commission can permit us to avoid this dilemma. We can protect national security, including ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, while at the same time ensuring a full and fair trial for any individuals designated by the President. Id.
-
-
-
-
215
-
-
34047191214
-
-
Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz, supra note 192
-
Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz, supra note 192.
-
-
-
-
216
-
-
34047115140
-
-
See supra Part I.
-
See supra Part I.
-
-
-
-
217
-
-
34047131536
-
-
Presidential Military Order No. 1, supra note 1, § 1(f).
-
Presidential Military Order No. 1, supra note 1, § 1(f).
-
-
-
-
218
-
-
34047115677
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 2
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 2.
-
-
-
-
219
-
-
34047103235
-
-
MAROUF HASIAN, JR., IN THE NAME OF NECESSITY: MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND THE LOSS OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 5 (2005).
-
MAROUF HASIAN, JR., IN THE NAME OF NECESSITY: MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND THE LOSS OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 5 (2005).
-
-
-
-
220
-
-
34047106087
-
-
Jeffrey Rosen, The Nation: What Price Security: Testing the Resilience of American Values, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 18, 2001, § 4, at 1 (quoting Mansfield).
-
Jeffrey Rosen, The Nation: What Price Security: Testing the Resilience of American Values, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 18, 2001, § 4, at 1 (quoting Mansfield).
-
-
-
-
221
-
-
34047140691
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 1
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 1.
-
-
-
-
222
-
-
34047169143
-
-
HEYMANN & KAYYEM, supra note 21, at 53;
-
HEYMANN & KAYYEM, supra note 21, at 53;
-
-
-
-
223
-
-
34047160290
-
-
see also Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025 (1980, codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3 2006
-
see also Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025 (1980) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3 (2006)).
-
-
-
-
224
-
-
34047163333
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 19
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 19.
-
-
-
-
225
-
-
34047120538
-
-
Joshua E. Kastenberg, Analyzing the Constitutional Tensions and Applicability of Military Rule of Evidence 505 in Courts-Martial over United States Service Members: Secrecy in the Shadow of Lonetree, 55 A.F. L. REV. 233, 237-38 (2004).
-
Joshua E. Kastenberg, Analyzing the Constitutional Tensions and Applicability of Military Rule of Evidence 505 in Courts-Martial over United States Service Members: Secrecy in the Shadow of Lonetree, 55 A.F. L. REV. 233, 237-38 (2004).
-
-
-
-
226
-
-
18144398937
-
-
See Note, Secret Evidence in the War on Terror, 118 HARV. L. REV. 1962, 1964-65 (2005).
-
See Note, Secret Evidence in the War on Terror, 118 HARV. L. REV. 1962, 1964-65 (2005).
-
-
-
-
227
-
-
34047094734
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 18
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 18.
-
-
-
-
228
-
-
34047186176
-
-
Id. at 19
-
Id. at 19.
-
-
-
-
229
-
-
34047154878
-
-
app. 3, § 3 2006
-
18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 3 (2006).
-
18 U.S.C.A
-
-
-
230
-
-
34047099628
-
-
See United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617, 621-22 (D.C Cir. 1989).
-
See United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617, 621-22 (D.C Cir. 1989).
-
-
-
-
231
-
-
34047154878
-
-
app. 3, § 4
-
18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 4.
-
18 U.S.C.A
-
-
-
232
-
-
34047121396
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
233
-
-
34047185138
-
-
Id. § 3; Kastenberg, supra note 202, at 239
-
Id. § 3; Kastenberg, supra note 202, at 239.
-
-
-
-
234
-
-
34047095707
-
-
Kastenberg, supra note 202, at 239
-
Kastenberg, supra note 202, at 239.
-
-
-
-
235
-
-
34047109493
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 22 citation omitted
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 22 (citation omitted).
-
-
-
-
236
-
-
34047111094
-
-
Id. at 22-23
-
Id. at 22-23.
-
-
-
-
237
-
-
34047178227
-
-
See Note, supra note 203, at 1966.
-
See Note, supra note 203, at 1966.
-
-
-
-
238
-
-
34047112661
-
-
MIL. R. EVID. 505(a).
-
MIL. R. EVID. 505(a).
-
-
-
-
239
-
-
34047155409
-
-
126 S. Ct. 2749, 2808 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
-
126 S. Ct. 2749, 2808 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
-
-
-
-
240
-
-
34047138752
-
-
MIL. R. EVID. 505(c).
-
MIL. R. EVID. 505(c).
-
-
-
-
241
-
-
34047100688
-
-
Id. 505d
-
Id. 505(d).
-
-
-
-
242
-
-
34047190686
-
-
Id. 505f
-
Id. 505(f).
-
-
-
-
243
-
-
34047167786
-
-
See id. 505(g)-(k).
-
See id. 505(g)-(k).
-
-
-
-
244
-
-
34047098602
-
-
Id. 505g
-
Id. 505(g).
-
-
-
-
245
-
-
34047092643
-
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(5)(ii) (2006). Protected information is defined as including: (1) classified or classifiable information; (2) information protected by law or rule from unauthorized disclosure; (3) information the disclosure of which may endanger the physical safety of participants in commission proceedings, including prospective witnesses; (4) information concerning intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; and (5) information concerning other national security interests. Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(i).
-
32 C.F.R. § 9.6(d)(5)(ii) (2006). "Protected information" is defined as including: (1) classified or classifiable information; (2) information protected by law or rule from unauthorized disclosure; (3) information the disclosure of which may endanger the physical safety of participants in commission proceedings, including prospective witnesses; (4) information concerning intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; and (5) information concerning other national security interests. Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(i).
-
-
-
-
246
-
-
34047119495
-
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(ii).
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(ii).
-
-
-
-
247
-
-
34047107585
-
-
§ 9.6(d)(5)(ii)c
-
Id. § 9.6(d)(5)(ii)(c).
-
-
-
-
248
-
-
34047130539
-
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949d(f)(1)A, B, 2006
-
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949d(f)(1)(A)-(B) (2006).
-
-
-
-
250
-
-
34047097687
-
-
Compare id. § 949d(f)(2)(A, MCA Alternatives to Disclosure of classified information) with 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 4 section 4 of CIPA
-
Compare id. § 949d(f)(2)(A) (MCA "Alternatives to Disclosure" of classified information) with 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 4 (section 4 of CIPA).
-
-
-
-
251
-
-
34047111093
-
-
§ 949d(f)(2)B
-
10 U.S.C.A. § 949d(f)(2)(B).
-
10 U.S.C.A
-
-
-
252
-
-
34047104304
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
254
-
-
34047133087
-
-
Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz, supra note 192
-
Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz, supra note 192.
-
-
-
-
256
-
-
34047179305
-
-
See HEYMANN & KAYYEM, supra note 21, at 54
-
See HEYMANN & KAYYEM, supra note 21, at 54.
-
-
-
-
257
-
-
34047149718
-
-
Id. at 54
-
Id. at 54.
-
-
-
-
258
-
-
34047109492
-
-
HASIAN, supra note 197, at 10-11
-
HASIAN, supra note 197, at 10-11.
-
-
-
-
259
-
-
0039130239
-
Kangaroo Courts
-
Nov. 26, at
-
William Safire, Kangaroo Courts, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 26, 2001, at A17.
-
(2001)
N.Y. TIMES
-
-
Safire, W.1
-
260
-
-
34047146302
-
-
MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES para. 198 (1917).
-
MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES para. 198 (1917).
-
-
-
-
262
-
-
34047185137
-
-
See Exec. Order No. 9185, 7 Fed. Reg. 5103 (July 7, 1942) [hereinafter President Roosevelt's Order]; David Glazier, Note, Kangaroo Court or Competent Tribunal?: Judging the 21st Century Military Commission, 89 VA. L. REV. 2005, 2053 (2003).
-
See Exec. Order No. 9185, 7 Fed. Reg. 5103 (July 7, 1942) [hereinafter President Roosevelt's Order]; David Glazier, Note, Kangaroo Court or Competent Tribunal?: Judging the 21st Century Military Commission, 89 VA. L. REV. 2005, 2053 (2003).
-
-
-
-
263
-
-
34047111556
-
-
President Roosevelt's Order, supra note 239; Marouf A. Hasian Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wartime Anxieties, and the Saboteurs' Case, 6 RHETORIC & PUB. AFF. 233, 234 (2003).
-
President Roosevelt's Order, supra note 239; Marouf A. Hasian Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wartime Anxieties, and the Saboteurs' Case, 6 RHETORIC & PUB. AFF. 233, 234 (2003).
-
-
-
-
264
-
-
34047134141
-
-
Glazier, supra note 239, at 2054 (quoting Memorandum from President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Attorney Gen. Francis Biddle (June 30, 1942) (Franklin D. Roosevelt Library)).
-
Glazier, supra note 239, at 2054 (quoting Memorandum from President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Attorney Gen. Francis Biddle (June 30, 1942) (Franklin D. Roosevelt Library)).
-
-
-
-
265
-
-
34047120008
-
-
Hasian, supra note 240
-
Hasian, supra note 240.
-
-
-
-
266
-
-
34047190685
-
-
President Roosevelt's Order, supra note 239
-
President Roosevelt's Order, supra note 239.
-
-
-
-
267
-
-
34047179306
-
-
Barry, supra note 238, at 4
-
Barry, supra note 238, at 4.
-
-
-
-
268
-
-
34047145780
-
-
317 U.S. 1 1942
-
317 U.S. 1 (1942).
-
-
-
-
269
-
-
34047158539
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 54
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 54.
-
-
-
-
270
-
-
34047105579
-
-
Quirin, 317 U.S. at 47.
-
Quirin, 317 U.S. at 47.
-
-
-
-
271
-
-
34047141445
-
-
Id. at 47-48
-
Id. at 47-48.
-
-
-
-
272
-
-
34047142503
-
-
Id. at 47
-
Id. at 47.
-
-
-
-
273
-
-
34047190143
-
-
FRANCIS BIDDLE, IN BRIEF AUTHORITY 328 (1962).
-
FRANCIS BIDDLE, IN BRIEF AUTHORITY 328 (1962).
-
-
-
-
274
-
-
34047169613
-
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 53
-
TURNER & SCHULHOFER, supra note 22, at 53.
-
-
-
-
275
-
-
34047134334
-
-
ARMY LAW, Nov, at
-
Evan J. Wallach, Afghanistan, Quirin, and Uchiyama: Does the Sauce Suit the Gander?, ARMY LAW., Nov. 2003, at 18, 38-39.
-
(2003)
Afghanistan, Quirin, and Uchiyama: Does the Sauce Suit the Gander
-
-
Wallach, E.J.1
-
276
-
-
34047155410
-
-
Id. at 39
-
Id. at 39.
-
-
-
-
277
-
-
34047153681
-
-
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME 221 (1998).
-
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME 221 (1998).
-
-
-
-
278
-
-
34047135914
-
-
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 569 (2004) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 569 (2004) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
279
-
-
34047172371
-
-
Rod Dixon, Developing International Rules of Evidence for the Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals, 7 TRANSNAT'L L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 81, 83 (1997).
-
Rod Dixon, Developing International Rules of Evidence for the Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals, 7 TRANSNAT'L L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 81, 83 (1997).
-
-
-
-
280
-
-
34047184633
-
-
Id. at 82
-
Id. at 82.
-
-
-
-
281
-
-
34047189085
-
-
Kim Carter, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?: Collecting Evidence for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 31 CAN. Y.B. INT'L L. 235, 239 (1993).
-
Kim Carter, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?: Collecting Evidence for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 31 CAN. Y.B. INT'L L. 235, 239 (1993).
-
-
-
-
282
-
-
34047127950
-
Forums for Punishing Offenses Against the Law of Nations, 29
-
Robinson O. Everett & Scott L. Silliman, Forums for Punishing Offenses Against the Law of Nations, 29 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 509, 511 (1994).
-
(1994)
WAKE FOREST L. REV
, vol.509
, pp. 511
-
-
Everett, R.O.1
Silliman, S.L.2
-
283
-
-
34047099133
-
-
Carter, supra note 258, at 239
-
Carter, supra note 258, at 239.
-
-
-
-
284
-
-
34047133086
-
-
In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 49 (1945) (Rutledge, J., dissenting). The
-
In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 49 (1945) (Rutledge, J., dissenting). The prosecution of General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the last Japanese commander in the Philippines, was one of the earliest U.S. prosecutions in the Pacific. In the words of David Glazier, "[t]he prosecution never demonstrated that Yamashita even knew of, let alone encouraged, any of the offenses committed, but instead took the unprecedented approach of simply charging that he failed to exercise his command responsibilities to prevent these atrocities." Glazier, supra note 239, at 2064.
-
-
-
-
285
-
-
34047185660
-
-
Yamashita, 327 U.S. at 49 (Rutledge, J., dissenting). Rutledge noted: Our tradition does not allow conviction by tribunals both authorized and bound by the instrument of their creation to receive and consider evidence which is expressly excluded by Act of Congress or by treaty obligation; nor is it in accord with our basic concepts to make the tribunal, specially constituted for the particular trial, regardless of those prohibitions the sole and exclusive judge of the credibility, probative value, and admissibility of whatever may be tendered as evidence. Id. at 44-45.
-
Yamashita, 327 U.S. at 49 (Rutledge, J., dissenting). Rutledge noted: Our tradition does not allow conviction by tribunals both authorized and bound by the instrument of their creation to receive and consider evidence which is expressly excluded by Act of Congress or by treaty obligation; nor is it in accord with our basic concepts to make the tribunal, specially constituted for the particular trial, regardless of those prohibitions the sole and exclusive judge of the credibility, probative value, and admissibility of whatever may be tendered as evidence. Id. at 44-45.
-
-
-
-
286
-
-
34047145781
-
-
Id. at 49
-
Id. at 49.
-
-
-
-
287
-
-
34047106565
-
-
Wallach, supra note 252, at 37
-
Wallach, supra note 252, at 37.
-
-
-
-
288
-
-
34047188367
-
-
Pal Opinion, supra note 128, at 654-55 (quoting President Webb).
-
Pal Opinion, supra note 128, at 654-55 (quoting President Webb).
-
-
-
-
289
-
-
34047181887
-
-
See 32 C.F.R. § 9.4 (2006).
-
See 32 C.F.R. § 9.4 (2006).
-
-
-
-
290
-
-
84963456897
-
-
note 68 and accompanying text
-
See supra note 68 and accompanying text.
-
See supra
-
-
-
291
-
-
34047107069
-
-
See Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a(b)(2)A, 2006
-
See Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C.A. § 949a(b)(2)(A) (2006).
-
-
-
-
292
-
-
34047167298
-
-
TELFORD TAYLOR, THE ANATOMY OF THE NUREMBERG TRIALS 57 (1992).
-
TELFORD TAYLOR, THE ANATOMY OF THE NUREMBERG TRIALS 57 (1992).
-
-
-
-
294
-
-
34047102244
-
-
Carter, supra note 258, at 239
-
Carter, supra note 258, at 239.
-
-
-
-
295
-
-
34047125141
-
-
See FED. R. EVID. 803(6)-(7).
-
See FED. R. EVID. 803(6)-(7).
-
-
-
-
296
-
-
34047105578
-
-
See 15 TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10, at 894 (1946-49).
-
See 15 TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10, at 894 (1946-49).
-
-
-
-
297
-
-
34047128471
-
-
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 89(C), U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.7 (1996) (entered into force Mar. 14, 1994, amendments adopted Jan. 8, 1996), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/icty/ct-rules7. html [hereinafter ICTY Rules]; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 89(C), U.N. Doc. ITR/3/REV.1 (1995) (entered into force June 29, 1995), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/RWANDA1.htm [hereinafter ICTR Rules].
-
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 89(C), U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.7 (1996) (entered into force Mar. 14, 1994, amendments adopted Jan. 8, 1996), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/icty/ct-rules7. html [hereinafter ICTY Rules]; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 89(C), U.N. Doc. ITR/3/REV.1 (1995) (entered into force June 29, 1995), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/RWANDA1.htm [hereinafter ICTR Rules].
-
-
-
-
298
-
-
34047095706
-
-
ICTY Rules, supra note 274, Rule 89(E); ICTR Rules, supra note 274, Rule 89(D).
-
ICTY Rules, supra note 274, Rule 89(E); ICTR Rules, supra note 274, Rule 89(D).
-
-
-
-
299
-
-
34047130538
-
-
FED. R. EVID. 403 (Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.) & Advisory Committee's Note (Situations in this area call for balancing the probative value of and need for the evidence against the harm likely to result from its admission.).
-
FED. R. EVID. 403 ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.") & Advisory Committee's Note ("Situations in this area call for balancing the probative value of and need for the evidence against the harm likely to result from its admission.").
-
-
-
-
300
-
-
34047175729
-
-
ICTY Rules, supra note 274, Rule 89(D).
-
ICTY Rules, supra note 274, Rule 89(D).
-
-
-
-
301
-
-
34047143589
-
-
Wallach, supra note 252, at 44 footnote omitted
-
Wallach, supra note 252, at 44 (footnote omitted).
-
-
-
-
302
-
-
34047120537
-
-
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Decision on Defense Motion on Hearsay, ¶ 16 (Aug. 5, 1996) [hereinafter Tadic Hearsay Motion].
-
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Decision on Defense Motion on Hearsay, ¶ 16 (Aug. 5, 1996) [hereinafter Tadic Hearsay Motion].
-
-
-
-
303
-
-
34047111092
-
19; Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case
-
¶, 555 May 7
-
Id. ¶ 19; Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1, Opinion and Judgment, ¶ 555 (May 7, 1997).
-
(1997)
Opinion and Judgment, ¶
, vol.IT-94-1
-
-
-
304
-
-
34047130045
-
-
Tadic Hearsay Motion, supra note 279
-
Tadic Hearsay Motion, supra note 279.
-
-
-
-
305
-
-
34047102243
-
-
See Dixon, supra note 256, at 94. Kellye L. Fabian noted that the Greve testimony should disturb even those with no training regarding the laws of evidence. She predicated her opinion almost entirely on witness interviews and newspaper articles . . . . [U]nder the guise of 'expert,' Greve testified repeatedly to what other people said and the way other people (the victims) felt. Kellye L. Fabian, Notes and Comments, Proof and Consequence: An Analysis of the Tadic & Akayeso Trials, 49 DEPAUL L. REV. 981, 1024 (2000) (emphasis removed).
-
See Dixon, supra note 256, at 94. Kellye L. Fabian noted that the Greve testimony "should disturb even those with no training regarding the laws of evidence. She predicated her opinion almost entirely on witness interviews and newspaper articles . . . . [U]nder the guise of 'expert,' Greve testified repeatedly to what other people said and the way other people (the victims) felt." Kellye L. Fabian, Notes and Comments, Proof and Consequence: An Analysis of the Tadic & Akayeso Trials, 49 DEPAUL L. REV. 981, 1024 (2000) (emphasis removed).
-
-
-
-
306
-
-
34047134852
-
Tadic, Case
-
May 20, at
-
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T. Trial Transcript (May 20, 1996), at 923.
-
(1996)
Trial Transcript
, vol.IT-94-1-T
, pp. 923
-
-
Prosecutor1
-
307
-
-
34047130540
-
-
Tadic Hearsay Motion, supra note 279, ¶ 17
-
Tadic Hearsay Motion, supra note 279, ¶ 17.
-
-
-
-
308
-
-
34047146301
-
-
See Allen & Leiter, supra note 70, at 1502
-
See Allen & Leiter, supra note 70, at 1502.
-
-
-
-
309
-
-
34047164344
-
-
See id
-
See id.
-
-
-
-
310
-
-
34047108493
-
-
See, e.g., Dixon, supra note 256 at 97 (Lawyers and commentators should guard against too readily assuming that the Judges adopted a modified adversarial system for the Tribunals.).
-
See, e.g., Dixon, supra note 256 at 97 ("Lawyers and commentators should guard against too readily assuming that the Judges adopted a modified adversarial system for the Tribunals.").
-
-
-
-
311
-
-
34047118981
-
-
Françoise Tulkens, Criminal Procedure: Main Comparable Features of the National Systems, in THE CRIMINAL PROCESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 5, 8-9 (Mireille Delmas-Marty ed., 1995) ([D]istinguishing [the common law and civil law systems] is almost a 'metaphysical question' which is now sterile and obsolete. If continental law was once classified as inquisitory and common law as accusatory, today those boundaries are blurred . . . . [W]e can't confine ourselves to these categories which no longer correspond to reality.).
-
Françoise Tulkens, Criminal Procedure: Main Comparable Features of the National Systems, in THE CRIMINAL PROCESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 5, 8-9 (Mireille Delmas-Marty ed., 1995) ("[D]istinguishing [the common law and civil law systems] is almost a 'metaphysical question' which is now sterile and obsolete. If continental law was once classified as inquisitory and common law as accusatory, today those boundaries are blurred . . . . [W]e can't confine ourselves to these categories which no longer correspond to reality.").
-
-
-
-
312
-
-
34047098601
-
-
Dixon, supra note 256, at 98
-
Dixon, supra note 256, at 98.
-
-
-
-
313
-
-
0043186537
-
-
Mirjan Damaska, The Uncertain Fate of Evidentiary Transplants: Anglo-American and Continental Experiments, 45 AM. J. COMP. L. 839, 839-40 (1997) (footnote omitted).
-
Mirjan Damaska, The Uncertain Fate of Evidentiary Transplants: Anglo-American and Continental Experiments, 45 AM. J. COMP. L. 839, 839-40 (1997) (footnote omitted).
-
-
-
-
314
-
-
34047170646
-
-
Id. at 845
-
Id. at 845.
-
-
-
-
315
-
-
34047180912
-
-
Damaska, supra note 15, at 121
-
Damaska, supra note 15, at 121.
-
-
-
-
316
-
-
34047097202
-
-
Robert H. Jackson, Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Address at the Washington Meeting of the American Society of International Law (Apr. 13, 1945), in 39 AM. SOC'Y INT'L L. PROC. 10, 15-16 (1945).
-
Robert H. Jackson, Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Address at the Washington Meeting of the American Society of International Law (Apr. 13, 1945), in 39 AM. SOC'Y INT'L L. PROC. 10, 15-16 (1945).
-
-
-
-
317
-
-
34047112662
-
-
See, e.g., President George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People (Sept. 20, 2001), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html.
-
See, e.g., President George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People (Sept. 20, 2001), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html.
-
-
-
|