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.
The NMCCA has issued an interesting published opinion on a government appeal.
United States v. Rios. From the opinion.
At trial, the Government repeatedly sought to use Edwards’s silence after he was Mirandized as substantive proof of guilt as well as for impeachment purposes. Over Edwards’s objection, the Government emphasized in its closing that Edwards had remained silent after law enforcement showed him the contents of the suitcase, suggesting a culpable state of mind. The Government in its brief and at oral argument concedes that this was error under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), but urges that the error was harmless.
So says the Third in United States v. Edwards. Result–new trial.
And, for those who follow this issue of how the prosecution and appellate courts seek to forgive such error. The court noted:
Brady Reconstructed: An Overdue Expansion of Rights and Remedies
Leonard Sosnov
Widener University – School of Law
William Clark, Boston College, Law School, Students
June 30, 2015
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/too-drunk-to-have-sex/
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html
Of course the danger for men in particular is enhanced by the fraud propagated during sexual assault training that one drink means no consent. I think it fair to call this aspect of training a fraud because it is medically and legally false. And, in my view knowingly so.
Doe v. Regents of the University of Southern California San Diego
While the Court respects the university’s determination to address sexual abuse and violence on its campus, after reviewing the Administrative Record, the Court finds that in this particularly case, the hearing against petitioner was unfair.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog