Uncategorized Category Archives — Page 70 of 113 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog Published by International Military Lawyer

Hamdaniya accused gets temporary reprieve

April 23, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

An accused has a limited right to counsel in the military. A very common event for defense counsel is PCS, release from active duty, and orders to deployment. Marine Corps Times reports:

A military appeals court has thrown out the 2007 conviction of a Marine infantry squad leader accused of murdering an innocent man in the Iraqi town of Hamdaniya.

Pvt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III, a former sergeant now serving an 11-year sentence in the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., will be released from confinement if the Navy does not appeal the court’s Thursday ruling, his attorney, Capt. Babu Kaza, told Marine Corps Times. However, Hutchins also could face a new set of charges if the Marine Corps wants to readdress his case.

LTC Lakin update

April 22, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The safeguardourconstitution.com website has posted the charge sheet for LTC Lakin.

WND reports that:

The filing of charges may, however, be part of the still-unrevealed strategy Lakin and his legal counselors are pursuing.

LTC Lakin update [corrected]

April 20, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

TPMMuckraker reports:

Appearing on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show today, the attorney for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Birther Army doctor who is said to be facing a court martial for refusing orders, suggested that if his client is court-martialled, he will use discovery to try to further the Birther crusade.

Jensen said he expects an investigation of Lakin under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice — which precedes a court martial — to begin as early as today or tomorrow.

Hennis another view

April 19, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I posted on Hennis just the other day in terms of one reporters view of the weight of the evidence.

Crime & Consequences picks up on a point.

Myron Pitts, who covered the Hennis trial for the Fayetteville Observer, has this article summing up the evidence. The whole story is worth a read, but my favorite line is this:

Digital privacy?

April 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

SCOTUSBlog reports that:

At about 11 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in City of Ontario, et al., v. Quon, et al. (08-1332). Arguing for the California city and its police department will be Kent L. Richland of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in Los Angeles. The federal government, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal, will have 10 minutes as amicus urging reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court decision. Representing four individuals who sued the city will be Dieter C. Dammeier of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill in Upland, CA.

The ubiquitous personal electronic device — pager, cellphone, “smart phone,” PDA — is emerging as a centerpiece in Digital Age legal controversy, including constitutional disputes when a government agency gets involved in regulating the use of these convenient computer-assisted, hand-held items. The Supreme Court has taken on a case to lay down some basic constitutional ground rules on when the users of those devices — at least in government workplaces — can claim a right of privacy, and sue to enforce the right

LTC Lakin update

April 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is another viewpoint, from a civilian, about the need to court-martial LTC Lakin.

The (Greeley, CO) Tribune opinion says:

When you become a soldier of the United States of America, you lose some of your rights.
Except in extreme cases, you no longer have the right to refuse orders of superiors. You don’t have the same freedom of speech that other Americans enjoy. You serve at the pleasure of your commander in chief.
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, while exercising rights that many Americans enjoy, now needs to suffer the consequences for his actions. He has violated the requirements of his office.

Hennis update

April 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I expect we’ll see several commentary’s about the Hennis trial. Here is one from Myron Pitts, FayObserver.com, which he calls, “Evidence adds up in support of Hennis verdict.” (Along with the article is a great list of links to prior reporting on the case.)

I saw a military jury convict Hennis on April 8 and sentence him to die Thursday[.]

Hennis’ lawyer, Frank Spinner, said at the bottom of the courthouse steps that the jury never got to know his client, who did not testify. The jurors instead were treated to gruesome photos of the murder scene, he said.

New policies post- Major Hasan

April 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Stars & Stripes and others are reporting that:

DoD is starting to announce new policies that may go into effect because of the inquiry into Major Hasan. I expect two will cause some heartburn:

More restrictive policy regarding weapons on base, including in quarters. I expect there will an initial uptick in Second Amendment related complaints.

Hennis sentenced to Death

April 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Washington Post reports that:

A military jury has sentenced a soldier to die for killing a North Carolina mother and her two children in 1985.

Hennis panel still deliberating

April 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

FayObserver notes the issue yesterday where the members wanted answers about parole should he be sentenced to life. I found this piece odd.

The jury left the courthouse at Fort Bragg about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday evening without a decision on a sentence for Hennis: life in prison or the death penalty. A death sentence requires a unanimous vote of all 14 jurors; a life sentence requires agreement from at least 11 of the jurors.

Hennis was convicted of premeditated murder, so it’s one or the other life or death. The paper seems to have picked up on the three-quarters vote needed for a sentence in excess of 10 years. In this case he’s already going to get life, the question is whether all 14 members will vote to terminate it.