Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogThe Washington Post has this interesting piece about the status of stolen valor issues.
Articles Posted in Uncategorized
A LTC Lakin piece
Blogger Rainier4311 has a piece on LTC Lakin which is critical of Anderson Cooper’s interview. Regardless of the merits of the interview, the piece contains some interesting and uninformed comments on the military legal system.
This Article 138 discovery process must be done. LTC Lakin now has the right to discovery based on the Articles of the UCMJ. The United States Army is attempting to prosecute LTC Lakin just to cover their tracks because the Army has put other personnel out because of their refusal to deploy because the erroneously accused wanted proof of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.
In all reason, the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility must be put to bed. Under Article 138, he is bound by both federal laws to prove his birth, and since he is, by all accounts the Commander in Chief, he is also bound by the UCMJ.
Congressional action on forensic labs
The American Academy of Forensic Sciences has made some recommendations to Congress for legislation to reform forensic laboratories that obtain federal funds directly or through an organization (such as DoD) that receives federal funding.
Preliminary Outline of Draft Forensic Reform Legislation – 5/5/10.
Thanks GR.
LTC Lakin
Obama Conspiracy Theories blog has this comment on the CNN LTC Lakin interview:
Paul Jensen, tried to imply things that were false by clever irrelevancies and innuendo, but he told one outright whopper:
In the state of Hawaii there’s a statute that allows anyone born outside the state of Hawaii, including in a foreign country, to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate, at any age, by going back and filling out a form.
LTC Lakin update
LTC Lakin has made his CNN appearance. Courtesy of Dwight “ML” Sullivan and CAAFLog, here is a link. Like DMLS I found the comment about protecting the client somewhat odd in light of counsel’s apparent involvement in producing the video which has in effect become LTC Lakin’s public confession of an “intent” to refuse orders. As DMLS points out there is a link to Mr. Jensen’s own website, Paul Rolf Jensen . . . Lead Counsel for LTC Lakin. That certainly should be admissible as circumstantial evidence of intent as to the missing movement charge. LTC Lakin’s supporters are not happy about the CNN interview, as this piece at World News Daily indicates. Frankly I wasn’t happy with it either as a lawyer who regularly defends clients at court-martial.
I thought I’d use this case as a way to refresh ourselves on how a defense counsel should approach an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing regardless of the accused or the charges. (I HAVE CREATED A LTC LAKIN PAGE here – which I will update as a relevant event happens or I have time.)
Cooper dominated the combative interview, demanding answers from Lakin, telling his lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, to let his client answer and then forging ahead with his own arguments.
Crawford exception
We’ve spent a lot of time over the last months addressing Crawford issues in the context of forensic reports. Let’s not forget that there are some exceptions to Crawford and confrontation.
Professor Colin Miller writes about the co-conspirator “exception” to Crawford.
In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution is violated when hearsay is "testimonial," admitted against a criminal defendant, and the hearsay declarant does not testify at the defendant’s trial, unless (1) the declarant was unavailable for trial, and (2) the defendant was previously able to cross-examine the declarant. Thus, if a statement is not testimonial, there is no problem with its admission under the Confrontation Clause. Thus, in its recent opinion in United States v. Diaz, 2010 WL 1767248 (11th Cir. 2010), the Eleventh Circuit was able to find a statement admissible without regard for the Confrontation Clause because co-conspirator admissions are non testimonial, even if they are made to confidential informants.
LTC Lakin update
World News Daily reports that LTC Lakin is scheduled to make another (potentially another) potential public confession:
A U.S. Army officer challenging President Obama to document his eligibility to occupy to Oval Office will be telling his story to Anderson Cooper on his 360 program on CNN.
The interview is scheduled to be broadcast from CNN’s New York studios at 10 p.m. Eastern. Lakin will appear with his attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen.
Crawford issue
On habeas review of state court convictions, the detective’s trial testimony about the statements of two non-testifying co-actors which implicated the defendant in the shooting and which were used to confront the defendant during his interview violated the Confrontation Clause and constituted plain error, in Ray v. Boatwright, _ F.3d _ (No. 08-2825).
Hasan update
I posted yesterday a couple of items where Mr. Galligan indicates he’s been given notice that the prosecution intends seeking the death penalty in the Hasan case. He’s wrong, but not wrong. It’s a question of terminology and reality.
Here is a quick note from KWTX.com:
FORT HOOD (April 30, 2010)–Fort Hood authorities said Friday they have not reached a decision to seek the death penalty in the upcoming Article 32 for Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan.
Hasan update
Here are some links to reports that the prosecution will seek to provide death penalty related information to the Article 32, UCMJ, IO.
AP:
Stars & Stripes: