Law Commons^™

Back To The Future With The Uniform Code Of Military Justice: The Need To Recalibrate The Relationship Between The Military Justice System, Due Process, And Good Order And Discipline, Anthony J. Ghiotto

Anthony J. Ghiotto

In recent years, the military justice system has come under increased Congressional and public scrutiny. Driving much of this increased scrutiny is the issue of sexual assault. The dramatic increase in reported sexual assaults, coupled with the military’s response, resulted in public officials calling for dramatic reform of the military justice system. These calls for reform included limiting, and even removing, the role commanders play in the military justice system. The military departments must proceed carefully, though, with these calls for reform. Dramatic reforms designed to correct the apparent flaws in the military justice system may in turn undermine the …

Discretion Abused: Reinterpreting The Appellate Standard Of Review For Hearsay, Matthew J. Peterson

Matthew J. Peterson

Matthew J. Peterson, Discretion Abused: Reinterpreting the Appellate Standard of Review for Hearsay

Abstract:

The decision by a federal a court to exclude or admit hearsay can be crucial to the case of either party. Despite this prospective impact, the federal courts of appeal currently defer to district courts’ expertise by reviewing a district court’s decision to admit or exclude hearsay for an abuse of discretion. Such deference often insulates district courts’ incorrect interpretation of the rule against hearsay and the improper application of the exclusions and exceptions to the rule from appellate reversal.

Lowering the standard of review for …

Kaleidoscopic Chaos: Understanding The Circuit Courts’ Various Interpretations Of § 2255’S Savings Clause, Jennifer L. Case

Jennifer L. Case

More than 65 years ago, Congress enacted a short statute (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2255) to even the habeas corpus workload among the federal courts. That statute included a “Savings Clause,” which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions and sentences in a federal habeas petition when § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” for the task. Since that time—and with increasing frequency—the U.S. Courts of Appeals have developed wildly varying tests to determine when and how § 2255’s Savings Clause applies to prisoners’ attempts to bring federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

In their attempts to understand the …