DiscoverLitigator Libations92 - US v Patterson; US v Dillenburger; and Reverse 404(b)
92 - US v Patterson; US v Dillenburger; and Reverse 404(b)

92 - US v Patterson; US v Dillenburger; and Reverse 404(b)

Update: 2025-07-25
Share

Description

Send us 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 case.  We then hear from Raquel Muscioni on utilizing M.R.E. 404(b) to prove up motive, competence, or other non-character matters pertaining to government witnesses.  

Comments 
In Channel
loading
00:00
00:00
x

0.5x

0.8x

1.0x

1.25x

1.5x

2.0x

3.0x

Sleep Timer

Off

End of Episode

5 Minutes

10 Minutes

15 Minutes

30 Minutes

45 Minutes

60 Minutes

120 Minutes

92 - US v Patterson; US v Dillenburger; and Reverse 404(b)

92 - US v Patterson; US v Dillenburger; and Reverse 404(b)

Darrel-the-DCAP