United States v. Alameda

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that military judge committed constitutional error by permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of the accused’s post-apprehension silence as substantive evidence of guilt, and then to comment on the evidence in closing argument
• holding that military judge committed constitutional error by permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of the accused’s post-apprehension silence as substantive evidence of guilt, and then to comment on the evidence in closing argument
• concluding trial counsel’s argument that lack of re- sponse between apprehension and Miranda reflected con- sciousness of guilt violated Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 304
• holding the military judge erred in failing to pro- vide curative instructions after misstatements by counsel
• summarizing federal circuit case law in interpreting Mil. R. Evid. 304(a)(2)
• “[i]ssues involving argument referring to unlawful subject matter are reviewed de novo as issues of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).