Podcast
Litigator Libations
Hosted by Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward · EN
Updates and tips on defensive litigation in military justice including discussing recent appellate decisions and providing advocacy tips.
13episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
103 - Improper Argument Strikes Again
Mar 600:45:28Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis 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 repeatedly dealing with the same improper arguments by Government counsel. To educate the field, the CAAF published an appendix to Matti, which un-exhaustively lists twenty-two improper arguments, and encouraged all military judges and counsel to read the appendix to protect against future errors. But a week after Matti, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals issued United States v. Kindred, No. ACM 40607 (f rev), 2026 CCA LEXIS 87 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2026). In this case, the Air Force Court seemingly disagreed with the CAAF’s determination that certain arguments were improper. Sam and Trevor discuss Kindred and how the Air Force Court got it right for at least one improper argument that implicated constitutional rights, but got it wrong for others. Questions, comments, concerns? Send them our way at litigator.libations@gmail.com! (Since, apparently, we can’t respond to Buzzsprout fan mail immediately…)
Transcribe →102 - Get it Together, for Efficiency's Sake!
Feb 2000:36:38Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis 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 case should be in any trial practitioner’s back pocket when seeking a continuance. Second, the duo debate United States v. Kruse, No. 202500370, 2026 CCA LEXIS 13 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 21, 2026), a published Navy-Marine Corp Court of Criminal Appeals case that addresses how convening authorities can refer what looks like a covered offense after the Office of Special Trial Counsel defers prosecution…so long as it’s not labeled as “a covered offense.” Sam and Trevor’s spirited debate ends with a reminder about ensuring jurisdiction in each case and testing the bounds of Kruse. Questions, comments, concerns? Send them our way at litigator.libations@gmail.com!
Transcribe →Unanimous Verdicts
Mar 11, 2022Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThis week Major Ryan Crnkovich steps in with an outstanding examination of unanimous verdicts in courts-martial after the Supreme Court's watershed case of Ramos v. Louisiana. Major Crnkovich breaks down this complex issue with a walk through the significant case law and some excellent analysis.
Transcribe →