42 - Catching Up on Cases & Complex Prior Inconsistent Statements

from Litigator Libations · host Darrel-the-DCAP

Send us Fan MailIn this week's episode we catch up on some CAAF cases, including United States v. King (excusing a member after assembly), United States v. Vargas (standard for selecting a remedy for discovery violations), United States v. Behunin (sentence comparison in "closely related" cases), and United States v. McAlhaney (CCA standard of review regarding the content of a reprimand). Major Allen Abrams then brings us a discussion of prior inconsistent statements in situations where it gets complicated because there are a number of inconsistencies in a single assertion.

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published May 5, 2023

Embed this episode

Attribution link and audio player

NOW PLAYING

42 - Catching Up on Cases & Complex Prior Inconsistent Statements

0:00 41:10

1×

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

Share this episode

Similar Episodes

No similar episodes found.

Similar Podcasts

Viva Frei - Recovering Former Litigator! From Law to Politics & Beyond David Freiheit Viva Frei Podcast - Breaking down the law, democratizing information Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast Legal Talk Network Ken White explores the background of important First Amendment cases and the personalities and history that led to them. Join Ken, First Amendment litigator and law blogger at Popehat.com, as he interviews some of the people behind America’s most important free speech cases. Charter: A Course - A podcast about Canadian Constitutional Law & Litigation David Asper Center for Constitutional Rights About the Series Charter: A Course is a podcast created by the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights (the Asper Centre) and hosted by the Asper Centre’s Executive Director Cheryl Milne. Charter: A Course focuses on Canadian constitutional law and litigation. In each episode, we highlight the accomplishments of U of T Law’s faculty and alumni involved in leading constitutional cases and issues. Each episode also includes a “Practice Corner,” where we talk about the ins and outs of what it means to be a constitutional litigator. Whether you are a law student, a lawyer, or just an interested person, we hope that you learn about an aspect of constitutional law and litigation that interests you in our podcast. Picking Justice Harry Plotkin & Dan Kramer Attention Trial Lawyers: You’ve meticulously crafted your opening statement, mastered your directs and crosses, and fine-tuned your closing argument. But have you developed a strategy for jury selection? What will you do when a potential juror gives an unexpected answer? Do you even want that person on your jury? The clock is ticking — you need to think fast.Introducing Picking Justice, the essential podcast for trial lawyers. Join nationally renowned jury consultant Harry Plotkin and leading trial lawyer Dan Kramer as they guide you through the complex art of jury selection.Harry and Dan share invaluable insights and real-world strategies, breaking down the myths and misconceptions that often hold lawyers back in the courtroom.Whether you’re a seasoned litigator or preparing for your first big case, Picking Justice offers expert guidance to help you make smarter choices during jury selection.Subscribe today and elevate your trial skills with Picking Justice.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of Litigator Libations?

This episode is 41 minutes long.

When was this Litigator Libations episode published?

This episode was published on May 5, 2023.

Can I download this Litigator Libations episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.

URL copied to clipboard!