Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The SVC also testified at the post-trial Article 39(a), UCMJ, session. When asked by the trial defense counsel if it was the “standard in practice as an SVC to meet with the military judge ex parte,” the SVC stated, “Generally, yes. We’re usually not included in [R.C.M.] 802 conferences, so generally the judge will speak with us, kind of one-on-one, sometimes before the trial begins and discuss just kind of administrative matters.” The SVC did not recall having a post-trial feedback session with the military judge.

Slip op. at 2.

In United States v. Turner, the AFCCA had several issues before it, two being:

When I read that, I thought of “The Invisible War.”

Friend and forensic psychologist Reneau Kennedy sent an interesting piece across the transom today.  She forwarded a piece by Karen Franklin:

In the Dark” shines brilliant light on bungled Jacob Wetterling case

Good friend Gene Fidell has drawn attention to a news release about the new report.  In particular he notes that 23% of those surveyed last year would not recommend making a report.  The 2015 survey report is Enclosure 3.

Interestingly, last year nearly a number of respondents were dissatisfied with the various services available to a complaining witness.

Specifically, 80% of respondents were satisfied with overall services provided by the SVC/VLC during the military justice process, 74% of respondents were satisfied with the services provided by the UVA/VA, and 68% of respondents were satisfied with the services provided by the SARC. Across these individuals, less than 20% were actively dissatisfied with the services provided by the UVA/VA (19% dissatisfied) or SARC (17% dissatisfied). Few respondents were dissatisfied with the SVC/VLC program, which was the highest rated resource across all respondents (only 7% actively dissatisfied).

No. 16-0704/AR. U.S. v. Dwight Harris, Jr. CCA 20131045. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. HILLS, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016), THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN APPLYING MRE 414 TO CHARGED CONDUCT TO SHOW APPELLANT’S PROPENSITY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED CONDUCT.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue.

The recent Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals case illustrates why defense counsel, and staff judge advocates, should exercise care with victim impact statements submitted post trial.

In United States v. Goss, the court reminds us that:

Article 60, UCMJ, was amended to include a new subsection “(d)” that authorized the submission of victim impact statements. See National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, § 1706, 127 Stat. 672, 960-61 (2013). However, the amended Article 60, UCMJ, does not address what may be included in a victim impact statement:

My title is from the title of a piece in Mother Jones.

Federal agencies don’t have a uniform definition of sexual assault, and that has led to dramatically different estimates on the frequency of sexual violence in the United States, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

Currently, four federal agencies—the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Defense—manage at least 10 efforts to collect data. The problems begin in how sexual violence is described and categorized. Agencies rarely used the same terminology to describe acts of sexual violence, the report found, and even when they did, there were differences in how they measured each act[.]