Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Fay Observer reports that:

U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle on Wednesday dismissed an effort by Army Master Sgt. Timothy Bailey Hennis to stop his court-martial for a 1985 triple homicide near Fort Bragg.

A jury has been seated in the court-martial. Opening statements and testimony are scheduled to begin today.

Kate Wiltrout in the Virginia Pilot reports that the military judge has directed five defense witnesses be given immunity or the proceedings will be abated.

The case against a Navy SEAL accused of not protecting an alleged Iraqi terrorist took a major turn Friday when a military judge ordered that five key defense witnesses be granted immunity to testify on his behalf. If not, he warned, the case will be halted.

Here is an interesting comment on CAAFLogs post on this case.

Daily Caller reports that:

Following a two-week absence, the Fort Hood attorney was back at it Friday despite a gag order, blogging on the perceived injustices suffered by his defense team in defending Major Nidal Hasan, the man charged in the shooting deaths of 13 people.

As previously reported by The Daily Caller, John P. Galligan, Hasan’s civilian defense attorney, made waves in the legal community when he launched the high-profile blog to highlight his obstacles in defending the case. The blog was silent for nearly two weeks after the initial controversy erupted, but he’s back, saying: “My blog will continue to highlight how my client is being unfairly treated.”

FayObserver reports that:

A 12th juror was seated in the court-martial of Army Master Sgt. Timothy B. Hennis at Fort Bragg this morning, but the total was quickly knocked back to 10.

Attorneys on both sides exercised their right to peremptorily challenge one juror each.

The prosecution of SPC Ivette Davila, at Fort Lewis, will generate some interest; hers will be the first death penalty prosecution of a woman under the UCMJ.

Checking – has a woman ever been executed as a result of a court-martial in the United States?  The answer is no under the UCMJ.  The two most famous death penalty cases involving women were Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).  (These cases stood, until the recent change to Article 2, UCMJ, for the proposition that there was no court-martial jurisdiction over civilians except under limited circumstances.  The constitutionality of the recent changes to Article 2, UCMJ, extending jurisdiction over civilians is yet to be tested.)

Noted authority on the UCMJ Frederick Bernays Wiener represented Mrs. Kinsella.

Seattle Times reports.

A woman accused of killing two fellow soldiers from Joint Base Lewis-McChord and kidnapping their baby in 2008 will face a general court-martial after military authorities determined last week there was enough evidence to move forward with the case.

The News Tribune reports this is a death penalty referral (seems like a decent summary of the case so far).  See also, BakersfieldNow.com.

FourthAmendment blog reports a new case:
 
Police reports were "deceptive and deficient," but the court believes officer without a credibility determination:  Ties go to the runner, or the government. The court finds the officer deceptive and believes him anyway because of a presumption police officers tell the truth [even when their reports are "deceptive and deficient"]. United States v. Jauregui-Barrajas, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19064 (D. Ariz. January 13, 2010).

Here’s the scenario:

Client is convicted at court-martial.  Sentencing is to take place the next day, or a Monday after a Friday conviction.  Based on the charges and the evidence there’s a reasonable likelihood the client will get some confinement.  The command wants to put the client in pretrial confinement pending sentencing.  Can they?

1.  If the client was already confined, the confinement can be continued.

There are a number of ways denial of counsel of choice can come up, most frequently related to the availability of civilian counsel.  Here’s an interesting one.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006).  The opinion is written by Justice Scalia.  Here are the important part of the opinion:

In sum, the right at stake here is the right to counsel of choice, not the right to a fair trial; and that right was violated because the deprivation of counsel was erroneous. No additional showing of prejudice is required to make the violation "complete."

Contact Information