Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogFrom CrimeandConsequences blog.
For the second time in two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the
mandate of the Florida Supreme Court in a criminal case on the
Articles Posted in Uncategorized
Gray, Death Penalty case.
Gray v. Gray, No. 08-3289-RDR (D.C. Kan. April 1, 2009). An ironic twist that the current commandant at the USDB is Colonel Gray. A little history.
Private Gray’s convictions and death sentence became final on July 28, 2008, when the President approved his death sentence. On August 14, 2008, the Secretary of the Army signed an Execution Order directing that Private Gray be executed at the Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute, Indiana, on December 10, 2008, at 2200 hours, by lethal injection. On November 26, 2008, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion for a stay of execution and appointment of counsel.
Here is the habeas corpus petition for Private Gray, it's 106 pages (thanx NIMJ). Gray is currently at the USDB with a presidentially approved death penalty. Here is a piece from the introduction.
Colonel Murphy.
Thanks to CAAFLog for this link to the Air ForceTimes article on Colonel Murphy's conviction by a members panel.
Here's an ABA article, same theme. Stephanie Francis Ward, Catch Me if You Can, ABA Journal Magazine online, April 2009.
How true?
Many accused, with halting eloquence, effectively demonstrate remorse and plead for leniency, while others squander the opportunity by engaging in malevolent recriminations and remorseless refusals to accept responsibility. The wisdom or folly that an accused evinces in deciding what to say in an unsworn statement does not diminish his or her right to say it.
United States v. Macias, 53 M.J. 728, 729 (A.C.C.A. 1999).
Actually that's not completely true, there are limits to what can be said in an unsworn statement. This came up for us recently in wanting to tell the members that the client's conviction at special court-martial of a domestic violence charge subjected him to Lautenberg issues and concerns. [n.1] The military judge allowed it.
Giles update
Courtesy of FederalEvidence blog we have an update on Giles.
In Giles v. California [documents at SCOTUSWiki], the Supreme Court [Giles the opinion] considered the application of
the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception under the Confrontation Clause and likely Crawford v. Washington,
Where’s the court going
David G. Savage, Who's Policing the Fourth Amendment? Two cases push the unevenly enforced exclusionary rule closer to repealABA Journal, April 2009. Another writer musing on the potential demise of the Fourth Amendment as we thought we knew it.
Expectation of privacy in cyberspace
Here is an interesting piece from Wired. Bruce Schneier, Security Matters, Wired, 26 March 2009.
The piece talks about the challenges of maintaining privacy and a "Katz" level of privacy in an increasingly wired society.
In the United States, the concept of "expectation of privacy"
Supremes another shift
Is there about to be another shift in interrogations law from the Supreme Court. Earlier we mentioned several commentators on the subject of how the "new" court is changing personal rights when faced with investigators. See an earlier post: Exclusionary Rule — To be Dead Letter Law — Possibly?
Court questions Michigan v. Jackson from SCOTUSBlog.
The Supreme Court on Friday told lawyers in a pending case, heard on
CAAF and CP and conduct unbecoming
United States v. Forney, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. March 26, 2009). This is a case where the appellant was convicted on charges and evidence for a situation later declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). This is the issue of actual versus virtual CP — primarily the Japanese anime cartoon type. However, the court found that the appellant could properly be convicted of conduct unbecoming in violation of Article 133, UCMJ.
[T]he possession of images of virtual children engaged in sexually explicit conduct may give rise to a conviction for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
That the possession of virtual child pornography may be constitutionally protected speech in civilian society does not mean it is protected under military law.
CAAF and police reports.
United States v. Clayton, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. March 26, 2009).
In this case one police officer testified, and he was allowed to testify about his personal knowledge of drugs found. However, the military judge also allowed the witness to lay a foundation for a redacted translation of a German police report of drugs found and their place of finding by other police officers and a civilian. The other police officers and the civilian were not called as witnesses and they had apparently not testified at an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing or in a deposition.
Most pertinent to this case, the Supreme Court has identified “‘statements that were made under
circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial’” as an example of “core” testimonial hearsay. Rankin, 64 M.J. at 351 (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52). In turn, this Court has established “a number of questions . . . relevant in distinguishing between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay made under circumstances that would cause an objective witness to reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Id. at 352.
circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial’” as an example of “core” testimonial hearsay. Rankin, 64 M.J. at 351 (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52). In turn, this Court has established “a number of questions . . . relevant in distinguishing between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay made under circumstances that would cause an objective witness to reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Id. at 352.