Uncategorized Category Archives — Page 68 of 115 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog Published by International Military Lawyer

Post-trial delay

June 9, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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

June 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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

June 6, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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

The relevant “facts.”

LTC Lakin update on WorldNetDaily

June 3, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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

June 3, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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

June 2, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

The written ruling is as expected.

Pernell update

June 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

Breaking on Hasan

June 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

MySA news reports that:

Defense attorneys for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Fort Hood psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in a mass shooting here last fall, won a four-month delay Tuesday in an evidentiary hearing that could lead to his court-martial.

Sitting in the same courtroom where he oversaw proceedings for two infamous Abu Ghraib defendants, Col. James Pohl ruled in favor of the defense, which said it had not received all the documents it needed – including a ballistic trajectory report now being done by the FBI in Quantico, Va.

SCOTUS activity

June 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

There are two decisions issued today of some relevance to military justice practitioners. One relates to Miranda and another to SORNA.

As to Berghuis v. Thompkins, Kent Scheidegger of crimeandconsequences blog says:

The Miranda rule remains intact in that the police must warn suspects of their rights and that an invocation of those rights by the suspect requires the police to stop questioning. Today’s decision involves what is needed to establish whether a suspect invoked or waived his rights.

MAJ Hasan

June 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Article 32, is supposed to begin today.

Here is a link to Wikipedia and a biography of Major Hasan. The Washington Post also has a piece on his life.

The Houston Chronicle has an odd item: