CAAF’s daily journal for 10 June 2010 indicates that CAAF has allowed NIMJ to file a brief on behalf of appellant (I abstained from participation in producing said brief), and allowed NACDL to file an amicus pleading but denied NACDL leave to file an “oversized brief.”
Articles Posted in Uncategorized
And more on the LTC Lakin 32 waiver
Here is a link to the press release.
The YouTube video isn’t operational yet.
Courtesy of TPMMuckraker here is the WRAMC statement:
Hutchins certification
Here is the daily journal entry for Navy TJAG certification of United States v. Hutchins.
No. 10-5003/MC. U.S., Appellant v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS, Appellee. CCA 200800393. 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 issues:
WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SEVERED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH CAPTAIN BASS?
Post-trial delay
The CGCCA has issued a per curiam opinion in United States v. Sapp., a SPCM tried at U.S.C.G. Training Center Yorktown.
Before this court, Appellant has assigned two errors: (1) This court should consider the unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay in determining the sentence that should be approved under Article 66(c); and (2) the promulgating order contains three errors. We grant sentence relief for post-trial delay and otherwise affirm. . . .
Notable delays in post-trial processing are found in the fifty-nine days apparently taken by the military judge to authenticate the record, the seventy-seven days taken after receipt of the authenticated record to produce the SJAR and send it to defense counsel, and the twenty-eight days between Convening Authority action and sending the record to Headquarters. The Memorandum forwarding the record gives no meaningful explanation for these delays, attributing them only to “administrative processing.”
AFCCA Article 62 appeal order
Yesterday AFCCA issued an order in an Article 62, appeal, in United States v. Harris. There is a rather odd, perhaps bizarre, chronology. What next is the question?
Appellant charged.
Additional charges added.
SCOTUS
SCOTUSBlog has the 3 June 2010 petitions to watch at SCOTUS. Here is an interesting one.
Title: Jones v. Williams
Docket: 09-948
Issue: Whether the Tenth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations to a defendant who was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial, on the ground that the remedy the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals gave to the defendant was constitutionally inadequate, given that the Supreme Court has not clearly established what remedy, if any, is appropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel in such a case.
- Opinion below (10th Circuit, rehearing denied)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
![]()
LTC Lakin update on WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has commented on the recent memorandum issued by the Article 32, UCMJ, IO in LTC Lakin’s case.
But Lakin said the result "makes it impossible for me to have a fair hearing."
"I cannot even raise the issue of the president’s eligibility, on the grounds that my position has ‘no basis in law,’" he said
Pernell update and press access
Army Times reports that:
Experts say Fort Bragg likely violated the First Amendment when it sought to prohibit reporters from identifying accusers at a soldier’s arraignment.
The Observer doesn’t publish names of victims of sexual crimes. But Pernell faces charges other than sex crimes.
LTC Lakin update
Thanks to safeguardourconstitution.com we have the Article 32, UCMJ, IO’s written ruling on several matters in LTC Lakin’s case.
Note, “the Army” did not refuse the defense requests. The IO did, acting in his role assigned under Article 32, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 405. This is what I would have expected MAJ Kemkes, the military defense counsel to have told LTC Larkin, and by inference, Mr. Jensen.
Pernell update
FayObserver reports that:
A Fort Bragg soldier accused of rape and break-ins on post, as well as in Cumberland County, is due in court Wednesday for an arraignment hearing.
Aaron M. Pernell, 22, of Tulsa, Okla., is charged by the military with two counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, one count of assault consummated by battery, two counts of burglary and one count of housebreaking, according to a release from the 82nd Airborne Division.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

