Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogNavy Times reports:
A cruiser skipper who was fired for cruelty and mistreatment of her crew will go before a Navy board of inquiry Tuesday that will recommend whether she can continue her Navy service.
A Behanna update by Army Times:
Up periscope
Articles Tagged with army court criminal appeals
LTC Lakin Writ sitrep
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals rules are here. As previously indicated there is no “deadline” for the filing of a writ petition in this situation, but once a petition is filed several deadlines and requirements kick in. Like DMLHS I have a request in for a copy of the petition. Note that in Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004), the equitable doctrine of laches arose and was discussed in regard to a late filing of a petition for mandamus.
Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights[.]
The following Rules are relevant to a writ.
LTC Lakin sitrep
It has been (fill in the blank) days since LTC Lakin has been denied some discovery and witnesses for his case. His website has been updated in one place to say “Judge To Rule On Defense Request,” but the breaking news column still has the old verbiage, “Judge to Rules On Defense Request.” Of course we all know the judge has ruled. The point is though that someone is updating the site. The ruling has been adverse to LTC Lakin. I think we can say that the site managers have deliberately avoided placing adverse information on the site. Here’s some questions.
LTC Lakin and his attorney are advertising the case on the internet and a website is being used to solicit funds for LTC Lakin’s defense (we can take issue with the purported amount, compare for example an estimate of $100,000.00 to defend PFC Bradley Manning the Wikileaks accused). Mr. Jensen’s website links back to safeguardourconstitution “For More Information Visit the Case Site.” Is the advertising for funds truthful at this point, if the advertising is not truthful at this point is LTC Lakin himself complicit in a lack of truthfulness, and if LTC Lakin is complicit in this is he acting as an officer and a gentleman? At what point, if any, and I think this question goes beyond LTC Lakin, is a client responsible for “advertising” about their case which is ongoing? At what point is an attorney responsible for the accuracy of his or her advertising about a case they have ongoing? To what extent is advertising about an ongoing case consistent with Rule 3.6 of the Army (or similar other Service rule) professional responsibility rules – AR 27-26. As we bloggers know the Army has been reluctant to publically discuss and/or release LTC Lakin’s case.
Subsequent to the 2 September 2010 ruling LTC Lakin through counsel has said publically a number of times that an extraordinary writ will be filed. To date no writ appears to have been filed. The next scheduled event is for an Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing on 28 September 2010. So now what?
Diamond petition filed
The CAAF Daily Journal for 14 September 2010 notes the filing of a petition for review by John M. Diamond.
Here is a FayObserver.com piece which documents some of the history of this case, including Michelle Theer’s abortive efforts to get a new trial.
According to court documents, witnesses for the prosecution repeatedly testified that Theer did not cooperate with the investigation and a prosecutor told the jury in closing arguments that Theer invoked her right to a lawyer when a co-defendant was arrested.