DOCSLIB.ORG

Military Rules of Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Military Rules of Evidence PART III MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE SECTION I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope the error materially prejudices a substantial right of (a) Scope. These rules apply to courts-martial the party and: proceedings to the extent and with the exceptions (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the stated in Mil. R. Evid. 1101. record: (b) Sources of Law. In the absence of guidance in (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and this Manual or these rules, courts-martial will apply: (B) states the specific ground, unless it was (1) First, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the apparent from the context; or case law interpreting them; and (2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party in- (2) Second, when not inconsistent with subdivi- forms the military judge of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the sion (b)(1), the rules of evidence at common law. context. (c) Rule of Construction. Except as otherwise pro- (b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of vided in these rules, the term “military judge” in- Proof. Once the military judge rules definitively on cludes the president of a special court-martial the record admitting or excluding evidence, either without a military judge and a summary court-mar- before or at trial, a party need not renew an objec- tial officer. tion or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. Discussion (c) Review of Constitutional Error. The standard Discussion was added to these Rules in 2013. The Discussion provided in subdivision (a)(2) does not apply to er- itself does not have the force of law, even though it may describe rors implicating the United States Constitution as it legal requirements derived from other sources. It is in the nature applies to members of the Armed Forces, unless the of treatise, and may be used as secondary authority. If a matter is included in a rule, it is intended that the matter be binding, unless error arises under these rules and subdivision (a)(2) it is clearly expressed as precatory. The Discussion will be re- provides a standard that is more advantageous to the vised from time to time as warranted by changes in applicable accused than the constitutional standard. law. See Composition of the Manual for Courts-Martial in Appen- (d) Military Judge’s Statement about the Ruling; dix 21. Directing an Offer of Proof. The military judge may Practitioners should also refer to the Analysis of the Military Rules of Evidence contained in Appendix 22 of this Manual. The make any statement about the character or form of Analysis is similar to Committee Notes accompanying the Federal the evidence, the objection made, and the ruling. Rules of Evidence and is intended to address the basis of the rule, The military judge may direct that an offer of proof deviation from the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant precedent, be made in question-and-answer form. and drafters’ intent. (e) Preventing the Members from Hearing Inadmis- sible Evidence. In a court-martial composed of a military judge and members, to the extent practica- Rule 102. Purpose ble, the military judge must conduct a trial so that These rules should be construed so as to adminis- inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the mem- ter every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable bers by any means. expense and delay, and promote the development of (f) Taking Notice of Plain Error. A military judge evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth may take notice of a plain error that materially prej- and securing a just determination. udices a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved. Rule 103. Rulings on evidence (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim Rule 104. Preliminary questions error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if (a) In General. The military judge must decide any UPDATED MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE JUNE 2015 1 preliminary question about whether a witness is available or qualified, a privilege exists, a continu- introduction, at that time, of any other part – or any ance should be granted, or evidence is admissible. In other writing or recorded statement – that in fairness so deciding, the military judge is not bound by evi- ought to be considered at the same time. dence rules, except those on privilege. (b) Relevance that Depends on a Fact. When the SECTION II relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact JUDICIAL NOTICE exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The military judge Rule 201. Judicial notice of adjudicative may admit the proposed evidence on the condition facts that the proof be introduced later. A ruling on the (a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of ful- adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact. fillment of a condition of fact is the sole responsibil- (b) Kinds of Facts that May Be Judicially Noticed. ity of the military judge, except where these rules or The military judge may judicially notice a fact that this Manual provide expressly to the contrary. is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (c) Conducting a Hearing so that the Members Can- (1) is generally known universally, locally, or in not Hear It. Except in cases tried before a special the area pertinent to the event; or court-martial without a military judge, the military judge must conduct any hearing on a preliminary (2) can be accurately and readily determined from question so that the members cannot hear it if: sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. (1) the hearing involves the admissibility of a statement of the accused under Mil. R. Evid. 301- (c) Taking Notice. The military judge: 306; (1) may take judicial notice whether requested or (2) the accused is a witness and so requests; or not; or (3) justice so requires. (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the military judge is supplied with the necessary (d) Cross-Examining the Accused. By testifying on information. a preliminary question, the accused does not become The military judge must inform the parties in open subject to cross-examination on other issues in the court when, without being requested, he or she takes case. judicial notice of an adjudicative fact essential to (e) Evidence Relevant to Weight and Credibility. establishing an element of the case. This rule does not limit a party’s right to introduce (d) Timing. The military judge may take judicial before the members evidence that is relevant to the notice at any stage of the proceeding. weight or credibility of other evidence. (e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of Rule 105. Limiting evidence that is not taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be admissible against other parties or for other noticed. If the military judge takes judicial notice purposes before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still If the military judge admits evidence that is ad- entitled to be heard. missible against a party or for a purpose – but not (f) Instructing the Members. The military judge against another party or for another purpose – the must instruct the members that they may or may not military judge, on timely request, must restrict the accept the noticed fact as conclusive. evidence to its proper scope and instruct the mem- bers accordingly. Rule 202. Judicial notice of law (a) Domestic Law. The military judge may take ju- Rule 106. Remainder of or related writings dicial notice of domestic law. If a domestic law is a or recorded statements fact that is of consequence to the determination of If a party introduces all or part of a writing or the action, the procedural requirements of Mil. R. recorded statement, an adverse party may require the Evid. 201 – except Rule 201(f) – apply. (b) Foreign Law. A party who intends to raise an UPDATED MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE JUNE 2015 2 issue concerning the law of a foreign country must (d) Exercise of the Privilege. If a witness states that give reasonable written notice. The military judge, in the answer to a question may tend to incriminate determining foreign law, may consider any relevant him or her, the witness cannot be required to answer material or source, in accordance with Mil. R. Evid. unless the military judge finds that the facts and 104. Such a determination is a ruling on a question circumstances are such that no answer the witness of law. might make to the question would tend to incrimi- nate the witness or that the witness has, with respect SECTION III to the question, waived the privilege against self- EXCLUSIONARY RULES AND RELATED incrimination. A witness may not assert the privilege MATTERS CONCERNING SELF- if he or she is not subject to criminal penalty as a INCRIMINATION, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, result of an answer by reason of immunity, running of the statute of limitations, or similar reason. AND EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION (1) Immunity Requirements. The minimum grant of immunity adequate to overcome the privilege is Rule 301. Privilege concerning compulsory that which under either R.C.M. 704 or other proper self-incrimination authority provides that neither the testimony of the (a) General Rule. An individual may claim the most witness nor any evidence obtained from that testi- favorable privilege provided by the Fifth Amend- mony may be used against the witness at any subse- ment to the United States Constitution, Article 31, or quent trial other than in a prosecution for perjury, these rules.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michigan Rules of Evidence Table of Contents
    Michigan Rules of Evidence Table of Contents RULES 101–106 .......................................................................................................... 4 Rule 101. Scope. ....................................................................................................... 4 Rule 102. Purpose. ................................................................................................... 4 Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence. ............................................................................... 4 Rule 104. Preliminary Questions. ........................................................................... 5 Rule 105. Limited Admissibility. ............................................................................. 5 Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements. ................. 5 RULES 201–202 .......................................................................................................... 5 Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts. .................................................... 5 Rule 202. Judicial Notice of Law. ............................................................................ 6 RULES 301–302 .......................................................................................................... 6 Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings. ................................... 6 Rule 302. Presumptions in Criminal Cases. ........................................................... 6 RULES 401–411 .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chain of Custody
    BY KEITH G. CHVAL Chain of Custody Recent incidents have shown how important it is for colleges and universities to preserve evidence — including digital evidence — that may be required in a legal investigation. ey Jon, I need the “ chain of custody.” H “The what?” Your general counsel has just stopped by your office and dropped that bombshell on you as you were drinking your morning cup of coffee. “Remember all those e-mails and other electronic files you gave us in connection with that internal investigation of Smith last summer? Well, the case is going to trial, and we need the chain of custody to prove that Smith really wrote all those things. Without the chain of custody, the judge won’t admit any of that information, and we’ll get killed at trial.” While chain of custody is a legal is challenging the authenticity of If “chain of custody” is a new or term of art — meaning it has a evidence — particularly where digital vague concept to you, you’re not alone. specific meaning in the law and can evidence is involved — I’ve found that AEL HENDERSON AEL In simplest terms, a proper chain have legal consequences — it has there are very few who adequately L of custody establishes the integrity significant practical implications for account for the chain of custody, let of a piece of evidence, showing that IT managers and other professionals. alone appreciate its importance,” it wasn’t tampered with or otherwise “Although it plays a critical function observes Scott Carlson, a partner in altered since it was first collected.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson Plan Overview
    Participant Workbook Lesson Plan Overview Course Asylum Officer Basic Training Lesson Asylum Eligibility Part IV: Burden of Proof, Standards of Proof, and Evidence Rev. Date September 14, 2006 Lesson Description This lesson describes the various standards of proof that are required in adjudicating affirmative asylum and credible fear cases. The lesson also explains the operation of the burden of proof in the affirmative asylum process. Field Performance Given a request for asylum to adjudicate, the asylum officer will Objective correctly apply the law to determine eligibility for asylum in the United States. Academy Training Given written and roleplay scenarios, trainees will correctly identify Performance Objectives which party bears the burden of proof and what standard of proof is required, and apply the law appropriately to determine eligibility for asylum in the United States. Interim (Training) 1. Distinguish the applicant’s burden of proof from the standards of Performance Objectives proof necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. 2. Identify the applicant’s burden of proof to establish eligibility to apply for asylum. 3. Identify applicant’s burden of proof to establish eligibility for asylum. 4. Identify types of evidence that may establish eligibility for asylum. 5. Identify DHS’s burden of proof in asylum adjudication. Instructional Methods Lecture, Discussion Student References Participant Workbook Method of Evaluation Observed Lab exercise with critique from evaluator, practical exercise exam, Written test US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES – RAIO – ASYLUM DIVISION ASYLUM OFFICER BASIC TRAINING COURSE SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 ELIGIBILITY PART IV: BURDEN OF PROOF, STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND EVIDENCE AILA Doc. No. 19110711. (Posted 11/7/19) 1 Participant Workbook CRITICAL TASKS SOURCE: Asylum Officer Validation of Basic Training Final Report (Phase One), Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Harem Fantasies and Music Videos: Contemporary Orientalist Representation
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2007 Harem Fantasies and Music Videos: Contemporary Orientalist Representation Maya Ayana Johnson College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Music Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, Maya Ayana, "Harem Fantasies and Music Videos: Contemporary Orientalist Representation" (2007). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626527. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-nf9f-6h02 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Harem Fantasies and Music Videos: Contemporary Orientalist Representation Maya Ayana Johnson Richmond, Virginia Master of Arts, Georgetown University, 2004 Bachelor of Arts, George Mason University, 2002 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts American Studies Program The College of William and Mary August 2007 APPROVAL PAGE This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Maya Ayana Johnson Approved by the Committee, February 2007 y - W ^ ' _■■■■■■ Committee Chair Associate ssor/Grey Gundaker, American Studies William and Mary Associate Professor/Arthur Krrtght, American Studies Cpllege of William and Mary Associate Professor K im b erly Phillips, American Studies College of William and Mary ABSTRACT In recent years, a number of young female pop singers have incorporated into their music video performances dance, costuming, and musical motifs that suggest references to dance, costume, and musical forms from the Orient.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-Cr-00008-NR Document 2581 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 3
    Case 2:19-cr-00008-NR Document 2581 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) 2:19-cr-8-NR ) OMARI PATTON, ) ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER Omari Patton and 47 co-defendants are charged with engaging in a large-scale conspiracy to traffic a variety of Schedule I, II, and III controlled substances, including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, and synthetic cannabinoids. Mr. Patton has requested leave to file a motion to suppress certain laboratory test results and other items that the Federal Bureau of Prisons seized, including card stock and other paper that was believed to have been soaked in controlled substances. ECF 1774; ECF 1810. After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, the Court will grant Mr. Patton leave to file his motion to suppress, but will deny the motion without prejudice to Mr. Patton reasserting his objections at or around the time of trial. Mr. Patton’s primary argument is that “the Government failed to properly preserve” the cards and paper seized and later lab tested because of “numerous and serious errors in the chain of custody.” ECF 1810, ¶¶ 4-6. Mr. Patton claims that “[p]hysical evidence must be authenticated before being admitted into evidence.” Id. at ¶ 7. He also claims that the substantial “break” in the chain of custody here makes this authentication impossible. Id. at ¶ 31. The government, however, correctly points out that “[a]uthentication objections, like other trial objections, are assessed according to the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 104(a) and 901(a),” and there is “no requirement that the proponent [of evidence] do so before the evidence is presented at trial[.]” ECF 1879, at ¶ 22.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Liability for False Affidavits
    CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE not recklessly disregarded the truth. The AFFIDAVITS purpose of this article is to discuss the liability that a law enforcement officer Bryan R. Lemons may incur in such a situation. Part I of the Acting Division Chief article discusses the mechanisms through which civil rights lawsuits are generally “Reasonable minds frequently may brought against state and federal law differ on the question whether a particular enforcement officers. Part II generally affidavit establishes probable cause,”1 and discusses the concept of “qualified “great deference” is to be given to immunity.” And Part III discusses the magistrate’s determination of the matter.2 requirements for holding a law Generally, a law enforcement officer is not enforcement officer liable for submitting expected to question a probable cause an affidavit with false or misleading determination made by a magistrate information in it. judge.3 Instead, BACKGROUND a magistrate’s determination of probable The primary federal statute under cause is to be given which lawsuits are filed against state and considerable weight and local law enforcement officers for violating a person’s constitutional rights is should be overruled only 5 when the supporting Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This affidavit, read as a whole in statute was directed at state officials who a realistic and common used the authority granted them to deprive sense manner, does not newly freed slaves of constitutional rights. allege specific facts and The purpose of the statute “is to deter state circumstances from which actors from using their authority to deprive the magistrate could individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if reasonably conclude that 6 the items sought to be such deterrence fails.” While section seized are associated with 1983 may be used to sue state actors the crime and located in the acting under color of state law, it may not place indicated.4 be used against the federal government or However, a plaintiff may challenge 5 Title 42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fundamentals of Constitutional Courts
    Constitution Brief April 2017 Summary The Fundamentals of This Constitution Brief provides a basic guide to constitutional courts and the issues that they raise in constitution-building processes, and is Constitutional Courts intended for use by constitution-makers and other democratic actors and stakeholders in Myanmar. Andrew Harding About MyConstitution 1. What are constitutional courts? The MyConstitution project works towards a home-grown and well-informed constitutional A written constitution is generally intended to have specific and legally binding culture as an integral part of democratic transition effects on citizens’ rights and on political processes such as elections and legislative and sustainable peace in Myanmar. Based on procedure. This is not always true: in the People’s Republic of China, for example, demand, expert advisory services are provided it is clear that constitutional rights may not be enforced in courts of law and the to those involved in constitution-building efforts. constitution has only aspirational, not juridical, effects. This series of Constitution Briefs is produced as If a constitution is intended to be binding there must be some means of part of this effort. enforcing it by deciding when an act or decision is contrary to the constitution The MyConstitution project also provides and providing some remedy where this occurs. We call this process ‘constitutional opportunities for learning and dialogue on review’. Constitutions across the world have devised broadly two types of relevant constitutional issues based on the constitutional review, carried out either by a specialized constitutional court or history of Myanmar and comparative experience. by courts of general legal jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Respective Burdens of Proof in Title VII Cases: Price Waterhouse V
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 The Respective Burdens of Proof in Title VII Cases: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins Confuses the Issue Gregory T. Rossi Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation Rossi, Gregory T. (1990) "The Respective Burdens of Proof in Title VII Cases: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins Confuses the Issue," Akron Law Review: Vol. 23 : Iss. 2 , Article 9. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol23/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Rossi: Burdens of Proof in Title VII Cases THE RESPECTIVE BURDENS OF PROOF IN TITLE VII CASES: PRICE WATERHOUSE v. HOPKINS CONFUSES THE ISSUE In August, 1982, a prestigious public accounting firm, Price Waterhouse, ("PW")1 nominated 88 candidates for partnership. Only one candidate was a woman. Her name is Ann Hopkins. This Note focuses on her employment discrimination action against PW, which the United States Supreme Court decided on May 1, 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Recidivism As a Performance Measure Ryan King Brian Elderbroom Washington State Offender Accountability Act of 1999
    Improving Recidivism as a Performance Measure Ryan King Brian Elderbroom Washington State Offender Accountability Act of 1999 Goal: “reduce the risk of reoffending by offenders in the community” Legislation calls for Department of Corrections to: • Classify supervised individuals based on risk of reoffending and severity of prior criminal offending • Shift resources toward higher-risk persons Washington Recidivism Rates Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy Establishing Metrics for Success and Assessing Results Why measure correctional performance? • Understand the outcomes of funding and policy decisions • Assess the effectiveness of justice agencies at reducing reoffending • Provide the best return on taxpayer investments Most Common Correctional Performance Measure: Recidivism The Good: • Correctional interventions (prison, community supervision) are supposed to reduce reoffending, so recidivism is a natural metric for success The Bad: • Frequently a single-indicator, which doesn’t allow for policy-relevant comparisons across groups • Irregularly collected • Presented absent context Four Steps to Make Recidivism a Meaningful Performance Measure Define Collect Analyze Disseminate Definition Use Multiple Measures of Success Desistance Severity Time to failure Behavior Change Time to Failure (Delaware) Percent Rearrested 2008 2009 2010 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 6 12 18 24 36 Months from prison release Collection Develop Protocols to Ensure Data Are Consistent, Accurate, and Timely Assign unique identifiers Develop long-term records Collect contextual information Update change in status Photo: Flickr/Kevin Dl Breaking Recidivism Down by Policy- Relevant Factors (Colorado) 3-year return to prison rates for 2010 release cohort Analysis Account for Underlying Composition of the Prison Population Photo: Flickr/Thomas Hawk Photo: Flickr/Thomas Hawk Remember that Washington Story from Earlier .
    [Show full text]
  • 249 Subpart C—Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards and President Naval Discharge Review Board; Re- Sponsib
    Department of the Navy, DoD § 724.302 § 724.223 NDRB support and aug- can presume the truth of such facts, mentation by regular and reserve unless there is a substantial credible activities. evidence to rebut this presumption; or (a) When an NDRB Panel travels for (2) If the discharge in lieu of court- the purpose of conducting hearings, it martial only required a valid preferral, shall normally select Navy or Marine the NDRB may presume that the signer Corps installations in the area visited either had personal knowledge of, or as review sites. had investigated the matters set forth, (b) The NDRB Traveling Board shall and that the charges were true in fact normally consist of members from the to the best of the signer’s knowledge NCPB and augmentees from regular and belief. 1 The weight to be given this and reserve Navy and Marine Corps presumption in determining whether sources, as required. the facts stated in the charge sheet are (c) Navy and Marine Corps activities true is a matter to be determined by in the geographical vicinity of selected the NDRB. To the extent that the dis- review sites shall provide administra- charge proceeding reflects an official tive support and augmentation to an determination that the facts stated in NDRB Panel during its visit where the charge sheet are true; that the ap- such assistance can be undertaken plicant/accused admitted the facts without interference with mission ac- stated in the charge sheet; or that the complishment. The NDRB shall coordi- applicant/accused admitted guilt of the nate requests for augmentees and ad- offense(s), then the presumption is ministrative support through Com- strengthened.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals
    Case 15-3775, Document 66, 03/10/2016 15-3775 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT MELISSA ZARDA AND DONALD MOORE AS INDEPENDENT CO- EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD ZARDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, — against — ALTITUDE EXPRESS dba SKYDIVE LONG ISLAND and RAYMOND MAYNARD, Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOINT APPENDIX – VOLUME I GREGORY ANTOLLINO SAUL ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Attorney for Defendants-Appellees 725 Seventh Avenue, Suite 705 One Corporate Drive New York, New York 10001 Bohemia, New York 11736 (212) 334-7397 (631) 589-7242 March, 2015 Table of Contents to the Joint Appendix VOLUME I Docket Sheet 1 Amended Complaint 25 Answer to Amended Complaint 41 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 49 Rule 56.1 Statement in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (together with Plaintiff’s Response) 49 Declaration of Saul Zabell in Support of Motion 87 "Exhibit 1" New York State Department of State Entity Information for 90 "Altitude Express, Inc." "Exhibit 4" Plaintiff’s Last Check 93 "Exhibit 11" Deposition transcript of Donald Zarda 94 The Following documents are not sequential but are inserted here as they refer to Plaintiff’s Deposition Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations Pages for trial 192 (The designations highlighted are highlighted references at record doc. 190) Defendants’ Objections 193 Defendants’ Designations Pages 196 (Highlighted references at record doc.191, Exh 2) Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ deposition Designations, Amended 197 PX 21 (unadmitted over objection) to impeach David Kengle 201 Screenshots of life at the dropzone 203 VOLUME II "Exhibit 12" Deposition transcript of Raymond Maynard Day 1 301 Errata Sheet for Day 1 380 i Raymond Maynard Day 2 381 "Exhibit 13" Deposition transcript of Richard M.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of APPEALS of IOWA No. 17-1369 Filed December
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 17-1369 Filed December 19, 2018 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TODD JUNIOR LANDIS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David N. May, (suppression) and Donna L. Paulsen (trial), Judges. A defendant appeals his judgment and sentence for operating while intoxicated and possession of a controlled substance, third offense. CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCING ORDER VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED. Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ. 2 TABOR, Judge. Todd Landis challenges his convictions for operating while intoxicated (OWI) and possession of a controlled substance, third offense, enhanced by his habitual-offender status. Landis contends the district court should have excluded the marijuana police took from his pocket thirty minutes before arresting him for OWI. The court found the marijuana admissible under the search-incident-to- arrest exception to the warrant requirement and the inevitable-discovery doctrine. We agree with the court’s reliance on inevitable discovery. The State proved jail personnel would have found the contraband during the OWI booking process. Landis also challenges his sentence. He alleges the district court gave only “boilerplate” reasons for incarceration. To the contrary, the court explained its rationale, emphasizing Landis’s prior convictions and “experience on probation.” As a result, we can review its exercise of discretion and affirm the concurrent prison terms. On Landis’s final issue, we remand for entry of a corrected sentencing order assessing the costs of his dismissed simple-misdemeanor charge to the State.
    [Show full text]