Here is the granted issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF FILE NAMES FOUND ON APPELLANT’S COMPUTER THAT WERE SUGGESTIVE OF HAVING CONTAINED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY BUT WHOSE ACTUAL CONTENT WAS UNKNOWN, ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO ARGUE APPELLANT’S PROPENSITY OR MOTIVE TO COMMIT SODOMY OR INDECENT ACTS WITH A MINOR.
AP reports that:
Five soldiers from the same Washington state-based unit have now been implicated in the killing of three Afghan civilians, an Army spokeswoman said Monday.
The Army said Friday that Spc. Jeremy Morlock had been charged with three counts of premeditated murder and one count of assault.
Officer to Army: See you in court, is the title of a posting to World Net Daily. The piece also links to the new video release. I did not see a new confession, merely a continuance of his supposed reasons for his contumacy.
He cited a long list of "reasonable arguments" raising questions about whether Obama was born on American soil.
Assuming arguendo that there are reasonable questions about President Obama’s citizenship, the questions remain irrelevant to LTC Lakin’s court-martial.
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.”
Here is a link to the press release.
The YouTube video isn’t operational yet.
Courtesy of TPMMuckraker here is the WRAMC statement:
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?
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.”
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.
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.”
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
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
