Litigator Libations
Litigator Libations
67 - US v Keago, US v Metz, Smith v Arizona, and US v. Rahimi
It is Case-A-Palooza! In this episode we discuss two CAAF cases and then quickly touch on two SCOTUS cases. United States v. Keago is a CAAF opinion holding that a military judge abused her discretion by failing to grant two defense challenges for cause at voir dire. It preserves the liberal grant mandate and provides helpful guidance to defenders. United States v. Metz holds that law enforcement agents did not believe, nor should they have reasonably believed, that Corporal Metz was a suspect in need of rights advisement despite going to his barracks to interview him after discovering a fire they believed was arson, learning that it was likely started with someone who had a key to the building, Metz had a key to the building, Metz was disgruntled and two items in the building that were specifically targeted by fire belonged to his supervisor, and his supervisor told the investigators that if anyone started the fire, it was Corporal Metz...not a suspect! The case also holds that Corporal Metz's consent to search his room was not the fruit of his illegal apprehension occasioned immediately prior to the consent. We then turn to SCOTUS where Smith holds that a testifying expert who parrots the facts and conclusions proffered by a non-testifying expert as the basis for his opinion, amounts to hearsay and if the statements are testimonial they also violate the Confrontation Clause. In Rahimi, the Court upholds a federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by a person subject to a domestic violence protective order as consistent with the history and tradition of firearm regulation in the United States.