Thanks to RC.
The prior link for LTC Lakin’s special page has gone. When you try to go to that link you get the main page of American Patriot Foundation. Clicking to the current projects link gets you to this:
Safeguard Our Constitution
Here is a quote from an item on DMLHS’s Facebook wall.
Guess which of your favorite law firms just became "replacement counsel" on the Lakin case? Going to see what we can salvage.
Looks like LTC Lakin may have reached out to Neal Puckett, a real military law knowledgeable person. Either that or Neal is playing a birthday joke on Dwight.
Army Times reports:
The Army has launched a crackdown on the drug spice at least nine commands in response to a spike in usage among soldiers.
A designer drug that mimics marijuana, spice is legal in most states, and is available for sale in smoke shops and online for around $50 for three ounces.
Missye Brickell, Filling the Criminal Liability Gap for Private Military Contractors Abroad: U.S. v. Slough and the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2010, 2 Leg. & Policy Brief.
Abstract
To ensure that all contractors who commit crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan can be prosecuted effectively in the United States, Congress must pass legislation to update Federal criminal law and fill the gaps that may leave certain types of contractors free from any criminal liability. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2010 (CEJA) attempts to do just that, and while it may deter some PMCs from participating in the U.S. military and security contracting market, the benefits of having a fully accountable U.S. legal system outweigh the drawbacks for individual contracting companies.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals rules are here. As previously indicated there is no “deadline” for the filing of a writ petition in this situation, but once a petition is filed several deadlines and requirements kick in. Like DMLHS I have a request in for a copy of the petition. Note that in Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004), the equitable doctrine of laches arose and was discussed in regard to a late filing of a petition for mandamus.
Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights[.]
The following Rules are relevant to a writ.
Here is an observation by federalevidence.com:
One issue raised by the new case concerns whether a majority of the Court still supports the Confrontation Clause analysis established under Crawford v. Washington in 2004, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in 2009. Two Justices who voted in the majority (John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter) have since retired. The five majority votes in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts included author Justice Antonin Scalia and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas (who also filed a concurring opinion), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four dissenting included Justice Kennedy, who authored the dissent, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.. It is unclear whether a new majority will be formed on the Confrontation Clause analysis and how the newest Justices (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) will vote on Confrontation Clause issues.
Humor in military lawyering is good. Humor is good. Standby for a comment from DMLHS tonight.
In thinking about why the case would be delayed to 3 November 2010 there were all kinds of ideas floating around, some ideas being of a conspiratorial nature. I had missed the piece noted by Reality Check (thanks!). Anyway, I thought the first place to go would be be docket – but first a digression on the piece of reporting Reality Check caught.
The military judge did delay the start of the trial for a month to give the defense more time to ask the court of appeals for help. (WUSA9 — http://goo.gl/Am1Q)
Daily Commercial reports:
To police Chief Ed Nathanson, it doesn’t matter where you’ve been convicted as a sex offender or predator.
It only matters that you’ve been convicted.
Army Times reports.
A regional prison is opening at Fort Leavenworth, combining the operations of military prisons elsewhere in the United States.
The Joint Regional Confinement Facility will be operated by the Army Corrections Command. It’s located on the northeast Kansas post near the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, the military’s maximum-security prison.
The U. S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Kentucky v. King.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated from one of the doors, which prompted the officers to believe the trafficker had fled into that apartment. The officers knocked on the door. They then heard noises which indicated that physical evidence was being destroyed. The officers entered the
apartment and found large quantities of drugs. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that this evidence should have been suppressed, ruling that (1) the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the officers created the exigency by knocking on the door, and (2) the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the suspect was not aware he was being pursued. The two questions presented are: 1. When does lawful police action impermissibly "create" exigent circumstances which preclude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by the United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist? 2.Does the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement apply only
Thanks to crimeandconsequences.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog