Uncategorized Category Archives — Page 77 of 115 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog Published by International Military Lawyer

Military death penalty – Davila

March 9, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

Soldier (a woman) to face death penalty court-martial

March 9, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

Who would have believed it

March 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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).

Pretrial confinement post-conviction

March 7, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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.

Denial of counsel of choice

March 7, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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."

Several new CAAF opinions

March 7, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Cowgill.

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN
DENYING THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE
FROM APPELLANT’S HOME.

The two underlying point were: potential erroneous information given for a search warrant (statements were factually incorrect, but believed to be true by the detective at the time), and if there was erroneous information, was there enough probable cause without the erroneous information.

Crawford issue

March 7, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

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).

Since Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), testimonial statements are inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause unless the declarant testifies subject to cross examination. There are not many cases in which a Confrontation Clause challenge raised for the first time on appeal may result in plain error. The Seventh Circuit recently identified one case which did.

Major Hasan update

February 26, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Temple Daily Telegraph reports that:

Defense attorney John Galligan said Friday that accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan could be back in Bell County as early as Monday.

Hasan was notified Thursday that the therapy he was receiving at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio was officially finished. He has been under guard at the hospital since Nov. 7 when he was flown there by helicopter from Scott & White Memorial Hospital in Temple.

CAAF and Article 62 appeals

February 26, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

CAAF has issued an opinion in United States v. Bradford, a government appeal of a pretrial ruling.

The appeal was on a military judge declination to pre-admit a Lab Package in a urinalysis case. AFCCA had no trouble saying that a declination to pre-admit evidence is appealable. CAAF had no trouble correctly saying that AFCCA was wrong.

The prosecution proffered the standard lab package and told the military judge they’d produce an expert at trial to discuss the package. That basically was it. On that the military judge was supposed to pre-admit the package. Rather than pre-admit, the military judge told the prosecution that they’d need to produce witnesses and pull out some pages that might be pre-admitted separately. The prosecution then ‘threatened’ the military judge that they were going to appeal. Notably the military judge expressed an opinion that his “ruling” wasn’t appealable. And it appeared the military judge was going to hold the prosecution to its burden to produce actual, like real, evidence. Rather than produce evidence and testimony necessary to lay a foundation for the documents either in the motion or at trial, the prosecution, rather peevishly to my way of thinking, appealed.

Major Hasan update

February 25, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Article 32, UCMJ, hearing has been rescheduled for 1 June 2010.

KWTC.com reports.