
Oral Argument Audio Podcast
Podcast by CAAFlog
30 vrk ilmainen kokeilu
Kokeilun jälkeen 7,99 € / kuukausi.Peru milloin tahansa.

Enemmän kuin miljoona kuuntelijaa
Tulet rakastamaan Podimoa, etkä ole ainoa
Arvioitu 4.7 App Storessa
Lisää Oral Argument Audio Podcast
This podcast re-distributes audio of oral arguments at CAAF and the CCAs, and occasionally at other courts. The audio recordings are created by the individual courts and the recordings are generally available on each court's website; this podcast duplicates those recordings in the form of a podcast for listener convenience.
Kaikki jaksot
76 jaksot
Argued on 11/08/2019. Discussed in the post: https://www.caaflog.com/?p=42366. Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

Argued on March 17, 2020. Issue : Did the Army court err when, upon reconsideration, it determined that the 5-year statute of limitations barred the rehearing of the two sexual assault specifications? CAAFlog case page: https://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2019-term/united-states-v-moore/ Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

Argued on March 17, 2020. Issues : I. Did admission of an allegedly positive Diatherix Laboratories test for gonorrhea without testimony at trial of any witness from Diatherix violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause? II. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in admitting an alleged positive Diatherix test result for gonorrhea in a child’s rectal swab-where Diatherix failed to follow its own procedures and the result was of near zero probative value? CAAFlog case page: https://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2019-term/united-states-v-baas/ Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

Argued on February 26, 2020. Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

Argued on February 6, 2020. Issues : I. To convict under Article 120c(a)(3), must the Government prove the attendant circumstances of both an indecent viewing under Article 120c(a)(1) and an indecent recording under Article 120c(a)(2)? II. Whether one who causes another to deliver an indecent visual recording to oneself may providently plead guilty to distribution of that same indecent visual recording under Articles 77 and 120c(a)(3) in light of United States v. Hill, 25 M.J. 411 (C.M.A. 1988)? III. Given the Government’s charging theory, were Appellant’s guilty pleas to Charge I, Specifications 2 and 3 provident when his alleged co-conspirator was not subject to the UCMJ? Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

Arvioitu 4.7 App Storessa
30 vrk ilmainen kokeilu
Kokeilun jälkeen 7,99 € / kuukausi.Peru milloin tahansa.
Podimon podcastit
Mainoksista vapaa
Maksuttomat podcastit