LTC Lakin sitrep

I happened to have business at MDW today so I stopped by to take LTC Lakin’s pulse for his upcoming court-martial and watch today’s Article 39(a), UCMJ, session.

The writ was denied today.  A straight line standard denial [thanks to CAAFLog for a copy].

1.  Mr. Jensen was excused from further participation in the case at the specific affirmative consent of LTC Lakin, because he’d been “discharged.”  See R.C.M. 506(c).

2.  Neal Puckett formerly entered his appearance.

3.  Mr. Puckett asked for a continuance because he is appearing in United States v. Wuterich, at Camp Pendleton, CA, beginning 2 November 2010.

4.  Trial was continued to 14-16 December 2010.

5.  The judge indicated that the defense had raised an issue with Specifications 3 and 4, Charge II, indicated that would be taken up later, and referred counsel to United States v. Jones.

6.  United States v. Jones , 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010) is a recent case on multiplicity and LIO’s.  A quick look at the specifications indicates that they could be the same offense charged twice and potentially multiplicious – under pre-Jones case law. 

image It would seem to me that the prosecution argument is that they are charging for “contingencies of proof,” that the best resolution is to wait until the evidence is in before deciding the issue.  At that time the judge can instruct the members that they can find LTC Lakin guilty of one of the two offenses but not both.  Or she can let the members decide and if they find guilt on both she can dismiss one.  Even if there’s a multiplicity issue that won’t have a significant effect on LTC Lakin’s punishment exposure.

Posted in:
Updated:

5 responses to “LTC Lakin sitrep”

  1. SueDB says:

    Goodness…it sounds as LTC Lakin has actually hired a real attorney. Welcome to the game Mr. Puckett.

  2. CPT Smith says:

    So the actual trial is now set for 14-16 December 2010?

    This is still at FT Meade and not FT Belvoir, correct?

  3. The Law Office of Philip D. Cave Viking says:

    Today was at Fort McNair. But all indications are trial will be at Fort Meade because it has a bigger court-room.

  4. […] news, Phil “My Liege” Cave attended today’s Article 39(a) session and reports here that Judge Lind accepted Paul Rolf Jensen’s removal as LTC Lakin’s counsel.  Neal […]

  5. “… the best resolution is to wait until the evidence is in before deciding the issue. At that time the judge can instruct the members that they can find LTC Lakin guilty of one of the two offenses but not both. Or she can let the members decide and if they find guilt on both she can dismiss one. Even if there’s a multiplicity issue that won’t have a significant effect on LTC Lakin’s punishment exposure.”

    Of course multiplicity increases exposure.

    To better understand this, take the “two offense” example to the theoretical limit, “all offenses that exist.” Then collect evidence applicable to any offense that exists.

    All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23a). For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin (Eccl 7:20). Everyone is guilty of something.

    Therefore, increasing the liability to “all offenses that exist” guarantees 100% exposure to punishment. Likewise, increasing the liability from one offense to two offenses increases the exposure, from the “one offense” level, some undetermined percentage toward the “all offenses that exist” level: 100% exposure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *