Uncategorized Category Archives — Page 36 of 113 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog Published by International Military Lawyer

A decision from the 10th that might be applicable to military parolees

May 11, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

There are two ways a military prisoner gets out: serve to their minimum release date or get parole. Either way, the person is going to be placed into a strict form of post-release conditions. For those who get to their MRD they will go into the Mandatory Supervised Release Program.

MSR (Mandatory Supervised Release) is very similar to parole. Individuals released on MSR must adhere to the conditions of release and are under the direct supervision of a parole/probation officer. Individuals released via MSR remain under supervision and must abide by all conditions of release for the full length of their sentence unless a portion of the sentence has been remitted by the Board. After successful completion of MSR, individuals are released from supervision and have fully served their sentence. An individual who violates the conditions of MSR is subject to sanctions for misbehavior that range from warnings to revocation of MSR and return to military confinement.

The individual on parole and MSR is under the direct supervision of a United States Probation Officer (USPO) until the full sentence has been served or the Army Clemency and Parole Board remits the remaining portion of his sentence. The difference between the two is an individual is eligible for parole after serving one-third or more of his/her sentence, while an individual released on MSR is released when he has served until his minimum release date and has submitted an acceptable release plan. Failure to provide an acceptable release plan could require the individual to serve his full sentence in confinement.

Pay issue on rehearing

May 10, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

You are confined, your case is appealed, your case is reversed and a new trial ordered.

You will stay in confinement–pretrial confinement.

But what about all the pay you lost while confined.

Why worry what’s on your phone

May 8, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

“Washington’s Supreme Court has thrown out the convictions of three men in what police called a gang-related shooting, finding among other things that music on one defendant’s phone was not evidence of gang ties.”

That’s the headline from the Seattle Times.

The slip opinion in State (Washington) v. Deleon is here.

Worth the Read

April 30, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Adam M. Gershowitz, The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols and Particularity in Cell Phone Searches, 69 Vand. L. Rev. 585 (2016)

Margaret Dodson, Bruton on Balance: Standardizing Redacted Codefendant Confessions Through Federal Rule of Evidence 403, 69 Vand. L. Rev. 803 (2016)

Clemency from the Prez.

April 28, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

This week, the Combat Clemency Project at the University of Chicago Law School petitioned for a Presidential Pardon on behalf of Corey R. Clagett, a former Army PFC released on March 31, 2016 from the US military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas after a decade of incarceration. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/review-combat-clemency-petitions-and-pursue-military-mental-health-reform

A powerful reminder

April 8, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

It should go without saying that a court-martial is a most serious matter, and the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt plays a vital role in the legitimacy of the military justice system. A “society that values the good name and freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.” In the military justice system, where servicemembers accused at court-martial are denied some rights provided to other citizens, our unique factfinding authority is a vital safeguard designed to ensure that every conviction is supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This authority “provide[s] a source of structural integrity to ensure the protection of service members’ rights within a system of military discipline and justice where commanders themselves retain awesome and plenary responsibility.”

United States v. Rivera, No. 38649, 2016 CCA LEXIS 92 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 2016)(unpub.).

On the wild side and off topice

March 28, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

CAAF’s Daily Journal for 25 March 2016 has this entry.

No. 16-0413/AR. In re Christopher E. Strunk, Christopher B. Garvey, and Harold W. Van Allen, Petitioners. Notice is hereby given that a petition under 28 USC §1651 for writ of mandamus and injunction equity relief in the matter of the New York Republican Party POTUS Primary on April 19, 2016, and the National General Election on November 8, 2016, was filed under Rule 27(a) on March 18, 2016, and placed on the docket this 24th day of March, 2016. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Some commentary to ALI proposed changes in sexual assault cases

March 23, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Click to access nacdl-comments-draft-6-mpc-sexual-assault-and-related-offenses-docx-1.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2753718

Sex Offender Treatment-Miramar

February 27, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Sex Offender program is under revision. The old sentencing requirements were 45 months to include abatement time (earned time/good conduct time/transportation time and consideration for treatment starting every quarter).

The new Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) requires at least 31 months sentencing to be considered for the program. We do not advocate increasing or decreasing sentencing based on treatment requirements but in order to be eligible for SOTP the member must be sentenced to at least 31 months at time of arrival.

A positive result

February 2, 2016 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Plant was a difficult appeal, for a lot of reasons. Ultimately we were able to get some relief at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The court set-aside a conviction of child endangerment and ordered a sentence reassessment.

Faced with the issue back in the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals we argued that the case should be returned to the field for a rehearing on the sentence. However, we argued the alternative remedy of disapproving one year of confinement. We did that because that was the maximum potential punishment for the child endangerment charge.

Today we received the news that the AFCCA agreed with us on setting aside one year of confinement. This means Plant will be released 16 months earlier than expected.