Claim OwnershipLitigator Libations
Subscribed: 10Played: 408
Subscribe
© 2026 Litigator Libations
Description
Updates and tips on defensive litigation in military justice including discussing recent appellate decisions and providing advocacy tips.
103 Episodes
Reverse
Send a text This week, Sam and Trevor start off by answering a listener question about one of last episode’s cases: United States v. Kruse, No. 202500370, 2026 CCA LEXIS 13 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 21, 2026). After a brief recap and debate, the two tackle United States v. Matti, No. 25-0148, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 189 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 17, 2026), a recent Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decision on improper argument. Matti reveals the frustration of the CAAF judges, who appear tired of rep...
Send a text This week, Sam and Trevor tackle two cases that foretell the risks of prioritizing expediency over process. First, after eight years, United States v. Jacinto, No. 24-0144, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 116 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 2, 2026), comes to end. This case went up and down on appeal due to a denied continuance and in camera review request concerning medical records disclosed on the “eve” of trial. While the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) found the denied continuance harmless, this ...
Send a text This week, Sam and Trevor discuss four of the latest Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces opinions. The first case they cover is United States v. Malone, No. 25-0140, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 62 (C.A.A.F. Jan. 20, 2026), which addresses how defense counsel can waive multiplicity issues. But the CAAF’s reasoning also strongly suggests that ineffective assistance of counsel claims may increase following this decision. The second case the duo covers is United States v. Moore, No. 25-01...
Send a text For the 100th episode of Litigator Libations, Sam and Trevor keep it short and sweet. They discuss two recent decisions. First, they talk about Case v. Montana, No. 24-624, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 432 (Jan. 14, 2026), from the Supreme Court. Case reaffirms Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), which discussed the proper test for the emergency assistance exception to the warrant requirement, but addresses it in the context of a suicide attempt. Second, they discuss United States v. ...
Send a text Happy New Year, everyone! This week, Sam and Trevor cover two cases where the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) analyzes the purported arbitrary application of military rules of evidence. The first is United States v. Maebane, No. 24-0196, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 772 (C.A.A.F. Sep. 18, 2025). In this 3-2 decision, the CAAF overturned a conviction where a third party’s confession was ruled inadmissible under Military Rule of Evidence 807. The duo dissects the detailed facts to s...
Send a text In their last episode of 2025, Sam and Trevor discuss all things waiver. There are four cases on the agenda, so buckle-up! First, United States v. Arroyo, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 688 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 19, 2025), which deals with how and why an appellate court can consider that an appellant got the “benefit of the bargain” from a plea agreement during its sentence appropriateness analysis. Second, United States v. Cook, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 726 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 28, 2025), which covers how an a...
Send a text Happy Thanksgiving! This week, Sam and Trevor tackle United States v. Gonzalez, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 761 (C.A.A.F. 2025), and United States v. Ruiz, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 656 (C.A.A.F. 2025). While both cases have some interesting facts, they also have big takeaways for trial practitioners. In Gonzalez, we see the first effects of United States v. George, 85 M.J. 133 (C.A.A.F. 2024), where the parties’ interpretations of the specification at trial trump arguments on appeal. For Ruiz, p...
Send a text Nothing is spookier this Hallow’s Eve than the Government failing to provide evidence to criminal defendants. In their Halloween special, Sam and Trevor untangle the web that is United States v. Secord, __ M.J. __, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 646 (C.A.A.F. 2025), a case about digital data and R.C.M. 701 possession. Then, they turn to a case straight out of the twilight zone, United States v. Roan, __ M.J. __, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 760 (C.A.A.F. 2025), involving hidden and destroyed evidence. Much l...
Send a text In their debut episode as hosts, Sam and Trevor discuss the recent CAAF decision,United States v. Casillas, __ M.J. __, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 692 (C.A.A.F. 2025). Casillas clarifies (or confuses?) the holding in United States v. Mendoza, 85 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2024), that cases charging a “without consent” theory of liability under Article 120, UCMJ, cannot be proven where the complaining witness is incapable of consenting, i.e., asleep or unconscious. Sam and Trevor also discuss a recen...
Send a text In today's episode we say farewell to long-time host Darrel Johnson and officially welcome our new hosts, Sam Castanien and Trevor Ward! In so doing, we discuss United States v. Saul & United States v. Navarro-Aguire, two cases that speak to the providence of a guilty plea and the importance of clarifying inconsistencies during the Care inquiry. We then discuss United States v. George, an important case that makes new law on how the appellate courts will evaluate d...
Send a text In this week's episode we discuss one CAAF case, one N-MCCA case, and the reversing the script on MRE 404(b). The CAAF case is United States v. Patterson, where CAAF declines to second guess the AFCCA on factual sufficiency because it is statutorily restricted to reviewing questions of law. The N-MCCA case has several issues, including the permissive inference in a no-BCD SPCM, the Confrontation Clause, and the Constitutionality of a mandatory no-BCD SPCM in a drug cas...
Send a text In today's episode we discuss two cases from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: United States v. Johnson, which cements the conclusion that military appellate courts will not correct an erroneous indorsement to the Statement of Trial Results or Entry of Judgment requiring firearm prohibitions; and United States v. Thomas, which discusses the burdens on the defense and government under Batson v. Kentucky . . . even though it is not at all clear that that case applies ...
Send a text In this week's (lengthy) episode we discuss United States v. Taylor, which deals with the statutory requirements that must be satisfied when involuntarily recalling a reserve member to active duty for purposes of court-martial (and how they differ from the statutory requirements that must be satisfied to subject the reservist to UCMJ jurisdiction). We then discuss United States v. Harborth, where the issue was whether the government must have probable cause before accepting ...
Send a text This week we discuss United States v. Brinkman-Coronel, where the CAAF acknowledges that cellular phones are unique under the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment analysis, but then presses on to treat third party consent to the search of a cell phone in the same manner as third party consent to search a brief case. Disappointing. We then hear from Captain Elliot Ko with a very thoughtful discussion of MRE 513 in regard to Family Advocacy records -- including sev...
Send a text In this week's episode we discuss the AFCCA case of United States v. Hunt, where the AFCCA applies the new factual sufficiency analysis and concludes that the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- a huge defense win. We then hear from Allen Abrams on Military Rule of Evidence 105 -- Allen does an excellent job of conveying the importance of the rule and how defenders can harness its power to ensure evidence is used in the manner most benefic...
Send a text Today Lt Col Allen Abrams joins to discuss the case of United States v. Shafran. The issue in the case is an Article 134 specification that failed to include words of criminality, such as "wrongfully" or "unlawfully." The case provides an excellent vehicle for Allen to provide defenders with considerations and options for attacking defective specifications. We then hear from the Free Speech Dynamic Duo - Trevor Ward and Sam Castanien who apply the current st...
Send a text In this episode we discuss United States v. Caswell, where the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals declined to follow the bench book and CAAF precedent, because it found that by moving the offense of unlawful possession of a concealed dangerous weapon from Article 134 to Article 114, the nature of the offense changed to put more onus on the unlawfulness element. Therefore, it declined to apply the "permissive inference" that previously allowed the factfinder to inf...
Send a text In this episode we discuss the case of United States v. Urieta, where CAAF found an abuse of discretion in a military judge's failure to grant a defense challenge for implied balance in light of the liberal grant mandate. We also discuss United States v. Valentin-Andino, which makes clear that "appropriate relief" may not feel like any relief at all to the client. We also get to hear from Major Rebecca Saathoff on strategic considerations when...
Send a text This week we discuss the CAAF case of United States v. Greene-Watson, which is another case addressing Military Rule of Evidence 404(b) and the very thin line between common scheme or plan and propensity under CAAF's recent case law. We also here from contributor Captain Jeffrey Critchlow on the history, evolution, and current state of the law regarding the spousal communication privilege.
Send a text In this episode Sam Castanien and Trevor Ward return with a great discussion on Free Speech law in military justice - particularly in regard to the possession of obscene cartoon, anime, or computer generated images that the government attempts to charge as child pornography. Making her Litigator Libations debut, is Rebecca Saathoff providing important information on how courts-martial and appellate review can impact your client's online presence. Two great discussions ...
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States