I posted a couple of weeks ago almost, that NMCCA’s cases in which the Fosler issue was addressed. We have another case which appears consistent with NMCCA’s approach in those prior cases.
In United States v. Leubecker, the court took up a Fosler issue again. The two challenged specifications related to breaking restriction and communicating a threat. NMCCA ruled against appellant.
1. It was a guilty plea, with a PTA.
NMCCA has set aside a guilty plea and conviction of misbehavior by a sentinel in United States v. Apodaca.
DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY ACCEPTING THE APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY TO MISBEHAVIOR BY A SENTINEL, WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS IMPAIRED BY A SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN ALCOHOL AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE? COMPARE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (1969 ED.), PART IV, PARA. 35c(3) AND 38c(5), WITH MANUAL FOR COURTSMARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2008 ED.), PARA. 35c(6) AND 38c(5).
It appears the accused was under the influence of hashish, not alcohol, and he was not sleeping. NMCCA notes that in the current Manual the President unaccountably narrowed the definition of drunk under Article 113, UCMJ.
Stars & Stripes is reporting the results of the Wickware court-martial.
Airman 1st Class Horace Wickware, convicted Monday of the abuse and murder of his 8-month old son, was found guilty Monday and sentenced to 22 years in prison.
I see that the Stars & Stripes have picked up on the former SecNav piece in the Naval Institute Proceedings., which I posted the other day in regard to the number of Navy CO’s being relieved for cause.
James Gow, War and War Crimes: Military, Legitimacy and Success in Armed Conflict, Coumbia Univ. Press, Dec. 2011.
Necessity and proportionality inform the laws of war, but how do these principles work in modern warfare? What new pressures do the practitioners of war face, especially in light of rapid changes in strategy and policy and an increasing emphasis on ethics and legality?
Wars waged in fluctuating environments make the legitimacy of armed force hard to justify, especially among diverse international and transnational publics. More than ever, strategy has come to embrace justice and law as crucial components of military success, but legitimacy is fragile and easily contested, and today’s militaries struggle to respond positively, consistently , and legally to an ever-shifting dynamic. Drawing on empirical research and interviews with seasoned military professionals, this volume describes how militaries can work successfully within the politics-law-strategy nexus to foster and maintain a sense of legitimacy in war. James Gow clearly defines the mutual relationship between wars and their outcomes, pinpointing the moment when a war act becomes a war crime, especially within multidimensional combat. Taking an initial, bold step in reconciling a troubling and taboo issue, Gow provides strategists, policymakers, and others with a framework for mitigating negative outcomes.
Professor Friedman has posted various amicus pleadings on his blog here. He lists one not currently on the SCOTUSBlog for the case. A little more here with Supreme Court cases with potential impact on military justice. Professor Friedman does note as to his own filing:
There are a couple of passages that I would amend if I could, in which I refer to the "primary purpose" test and appear to assume that it governs a case like this. I believe a "reasonable anticipation" test is far preferable, and I am hoping that the "primary purpose" test will eventually recede, perhaps first by being confined to interrogations. The recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Fackelman,, which I expect to discuss in a post in the very near future, raises my hopes that this may turn out to be true.
Now we know – who the nominee is to be the next judge of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces — Kevin A. Ohlson. Here is a short fact sheet from DOJ.
Here’s a piece from whorunsGOV at the Washington Post.
Career History: Chief of Staff to Attorney General Eric Holder (January 2009-January 2011); Director of theExecutive Office of Immigration Review(September 2007-January 2009); Deputy Director of the EOIR (September 2003 to September 2007); Board Member on the Board of Immigration Appeals at the EOIR (March 2001 to September 2003); Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder (1997 to 2001); Assistant U.S. Attorney of District of Columbia (1991 to 1997).
The Recordnet.com reports on the non-capital referral decision in United States v. Platero.
The commanding general of Fort Stewart, Ga., did not talk directly with the families of two soldiers killed in Iraq a year ago – including the Carrillo family of Stockton – before making the decision to pull the death penalty off the table in court-martial proceedings against another soldier under his command.
You will recollect the still ongoing issues with the Navy VWAP at Yokosuka, Japan.
Stars & Stripes reports on the continuing trial of United States v. Wickware.
The wife of a Spangdahlem Air Base airman charged with murder in the abuse death of his infant son testified at his court-martial Monday.
Note the comment of an experienced military judge about how difficult these cases can be for the fact-finder (and one who obviously sought to apply the standard of proof).
SCOTUSBlog reports their “petition of the day,” which is a criminal evidence case with potential relevance to military justice practitioners – Childers v. Florida, if granted.
Issue two is:
2. Should the Court resolve a conflict in the Circuits and clarify whether its Confrontation Clause
precedents, Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988), Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986), and
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.So 308 (1974), permit a trial court to preclude cross-examination into the bias of a key witness on the ground that the trial court has allowed some cross-examination into bias.
Paul C. Giannelli (Case Western Reserve University – School of Law) has posted The Execution of Cameron Todd Willingham: Junk Science, an Innocent Man, and the Politics of Death on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Cameron Todd Willingham was tried and executed for the arson deaths of his three little girls. The expert testimony offered against him to establish arson was junk science. The case has since become infamous, the subject of an award-winning New Yorker article, numerous newspaper accounts, and several television shows. It also became enmeshed in the death penalty debate and the reelection of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who refused to grant a stay of execution after a noted arson expert submitted a report debunking the “science” offered at Willingham’s trial. The governor has since attempted to derail an investigation by the Texas Forensic Science Commission into the arson evidence presented at Willingham’s trial.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
