Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 8/28/2002

United States v. Alameda

Citations

57 M.J. 190
2002 CAAF LEXIS 1030
2002 WL 1980409

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).

Judges: Gierke, Baker, Cox, Effron, Crawford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.