Articles Posted in Uncategorized

No. 16-0053/AF. U.S. v. Shelby L. Williams. CCA 38454.  Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

1. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL SUFFICIENTLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO A PREGNANCY AND MISCARRIAGE.
2. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION WHEN SHE ADMITTED TESTIMONY PURSUANT TO MIL. R. EVID. 413, AND ERRED IN FINDING PREJUDICE?

Today the court informed us that the Chief Justice approved our request to extend the time to file the petition until 13 December 2015.

The right to a fair trial: Part 1 – From investigation to trial.

See also, What is a fair trial?

Non-rated period approved for victims of sexual assault

Per a recent change to Air Force Instruction 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, victims of sexual assault are now authorized non-rated periods.   Per paragraph 3.3.10.1.2, Sexual Assault (Unrestricted Report): The Airmen will submit the request, using memorandum format to their unit commander. The initial non-rated period, if the commander approves, is 120 calendar days; additional periods (60-day increments) may be requested for the Airman’s recovery, and will be requested in the same manner. It is prohibited to include comments on any correspondence regarding the member’s filing of an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault, receiving support services, and/or participating in the investigative process and/or judicial proceedings.

Today we filed an application for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U. S. Supreme Court.  If granted the petition will be due 15 December.

Friday, April 3, 2015

Certificates for Review Filed

No. 15-0462/MC. U.S. v. Michael A. Arnold. CCA 201200382.  Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date, on the following issue:

Timothy Hennis filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Hennis is confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (“USDB”). He challenges his 2010 conviction by general court-martial for a triple murder that occurred in 1985. Petitioner mainly claims that the military court-martial lacked jurisdiction. He alleges other constitutional violations in the 14 grounds presented in his petition. The Court has screened the petition and finds that Mr. Hennis had not exhausted military court remedies. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

Hennis v. Nelson.

A good recitation of habeas for military accused’s and prisoners.  Of note:

The next sneaker has dropped in the writ petition of Bergdahl v. Burke, regarding release of the AR 15-6 investigation.

Here is a link to the amicus filing of the Center for Constitutional Rights in support of petitioner.

Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test.

So says a report in The Guardian.

Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test.