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).
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.
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:
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.
Should you want to follow the case – from a defense perspective – here are the three most common websites to follow.
WorldNetDaily. This piece about commentary from MG Paul Vallely, USA, appears to be the latest piece: “Retired Army general: LtCol Lakin has a ‘valid point.’
The filing of charges may, however, be part of the still-unrevealed strategy Lakin and his legal counselors are pursuing.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog