United States v. Vick, ACCA 2019.
Prosecutors and convening authorities require an accused to plead guilty to charges which the accused is not provident, but it’s a take it or leave it deal and the accused dutifully complies, only to have the whole process go awry.
Is Vick such a case of unreasonable requirements from the prosecution.
Appellant argues his trial defense team was ineffective. Appellant’s argument involves mistaken identity, fraternal betrayal, technological mystery, and a healthy dose of bad luck. The argument is ambitious and engaging, it is also wrong.
United States v. Carter, ACCA 2019.
As will be seen, this court-martial was a mess on several levels. Before discussing the facts surrounding appellant’s offenses, we are required to determine which specifications now remain before this court.
See United States v. Solomon, ACCA 2019.
A case to look out for.
United States v. Frost, No. 18-0362/AR
Issue: Whether the military judge erred in admitting hearsay statements as prior consistent statements under Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) where the defense theory posited the improper influence or motive preceded the allegedly consistent statements.
This is a banner on the NMPC web page.
NOTE: AMRDEC Safe has been reestablished to submit encrypted correspondence for a limited time awaiting
fielding of a permanent solution. For further information, contact MyNavy Career Center (MNCC).
Here is a link to a few cases of interest that were provided me last week at the 49th VACLE Criminal Law seminar.
Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit which, I believe, has a reputation as slightly conservative leaning.
United States v. Abdallah, ___ F.3d___ (4th Cir. 18 December 2018). Code 45 Alumni and friend Jim Wynn is one of the panel members. This case involves two issues: invocation of the right to silence and the all-important Brady issue.
Appellant challenges the factual sufficiency of his conviction for sexually assaulting MB. We have reviewed the evidence, which includes a video-recording of
appellant’s sexual encounter with MB. The video-recording demonstrates that MB repeatedly gave audible consent—or at least what reasonably appears to be audible consent—to sexual intercourse with appellant. Considering this evidence, we are not personally convinced that MB was incapable of consenting to the sexual intercourse.
The footnote to this finding states:
Thanks to Prof. Berman at Sentencing Law 7 Policy who directs us to Murray, Brian, Are Collateral Consequences Deserved? (January 29, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=
I have a standard sex offender registration motion that I use in all cases in which a sex offense is charged and if convicted the client will have to register as a sex offender.
Few appellate courts have been willing to agree that SOR is a punishment and hold that to be a collateral consequence. Some state supreme courts have held new amendments to their state law are “punishment” for ex post facto analysis, but they are few. Despite that, I continue to argue that SOR is more than a collateral consequence. As the second part of my motion, I argue admissibility of SOR as “evidence” under the principles for giving punishment, on which the members are instructed: particularly rehabilitation and deterrence.
SECNAVINST 5720.42G, 15 January 2019.
On appeal, Appellant asserts three assignments of error: (1) whether Appellant is entitled to sentence relief due to the conditions of her post-trial confinement; (2) whether Appellant is entitled to relief because the Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation (SJAR) failed to address alleged legal errors; and (3) whether the approved sentence is unduly harsh as compared to sentences in similar cases. We specified two additional issues: (1) whether trial defense counsel incorrectly stated in the clemency submission the effect of a particular term in the PTA and (2) whether Appellant is entitled to new post-trial processing in light of United States v. Addison, 75 M.J. 405 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (mem.), either because the addendum to the SJAR did not correct an error in trial defense counsel’s clemency submission regarding the particular term in the PTA or because the SJAR misadvised the convening authority concerning the PTA. We find that there was no meeting of the minds concerning the term in the PTA and thus set aside the findings and the sentence.
United States v. Rush, (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. January 2019).
