Professor Solum is getting some play in the legal blogs over the last day or so. Professor Solum explains the interpretation-construction distinction, in 8 February 2009, Legal Theory Lexicon: Interpretation and Construction, post.
The Blog of Legal Times, 6 February 2009, has this entry:
A seventh suspect was arrested and charged today for the murder of
Juwan Johnson, the U.S. Army sergeant who was beaten to death by other
Lisa Demer, High court to hear Alaska man's DNA appeal, Anchorage Daily News, 7 February 2009.
there. He said he was accepted into The Citadel but it was too
Not good? Is that the bottom line coming out of appellate results proffered by CAAFLog, Appellate Relief Data (8 February 2009)?
CAAFLog's own "research" of Air Force opinions yields an approximate 4.7% chance of getting relief, and an undetermined chance of meaningful relief within that number of cases.
CAAFLog also points to Major Jeffrey D. Lippert, Automatic Appeal Under UCMJ Article 66: Time for a Change, 182 MIL. L. REV. 1, 17 (2004).
Do you ever get the client or family member who want to sue NCIS, OSI, CID, CGIS, for what they did in an interrogation. Barring application of Feres (ha, some English major has to find something wrong with that).
Check out Smith v. Campbell, et. al., 295 Fed. Appx. 314, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19085 (11th Cir. 2008), a case in which the police got Ms. Smith to confess to murder of a person who committed suicide. The police interrogation methods did not shock the conscience and were justified. Ms. Smith's 1983 case dismissed.
NACDL has an interesting News Release, Civil Liberties, Religious Groups Seek to Require Warrants for Police GPS Surveillance.
The law is constantly adjusting to technology — the phone tap, the pen register, the thermal imaging device, are one of many items to get into your house. We've commented earlier about the use of cellphone tracking technology on where and how to find you. In each of the technology questions lies the issue of choice, or lack thereof.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has decided United States v. Lanier, No. 20080296 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 4 February 2009). The opinion has some current value, even though this is a guilty plea and adequacy of the providency case.
In this case the appellant was granted EML from duty in Iraq because his father had had a stroke. Appellant failed to return from his EML. He never asked for his EML to be extended or a humanitarian transfer. At trial he plead guilty to desertion with the intent to avoid hazardous service, in violation of Article 85(a)(2), UCMJ.
The A.C.C.A. website now lists United States v. Rosas on it's argument schedule.
CAAFLog notes that the, "[Harvaad] web site doesn't provide any guidance as to members of the public
(including members of the military) without a Harvard i.d. would be
Say it ain't so . . .
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals goes to Harvard Law School on 5 February 2009, to hear oral argument in a case that is closed to the public — or at least that's the perception. Information came our way a short while ago from an attorney practicing before that court, and now CAAFLog has identified the Harvaad calendar entry which raises the issue of public access.
You can note that the Court's own calendar doesn't show an oral argument until 19 February 2009. Could it be April yet? Halloween?
In United States v. Remsburg, No. 20070161 (A. C.t. Crim. App. 30 January 2009), the court looked at three issues: whether the judge improperly restricted defense solicitation of favorable victim impact testimony; whether the judge was mean to the defense counsel; and post-trial delay. On the post-trial delay issue the court notes:
I was happy to read that the defense aggressively made demands for speedy post-trial processing. The appellant got his two months credit.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog