Court-Martial Trial Practice

Stars & Stripes reports on United States v. Gray and other death penalty cases.

In December 2008, former Army Pvt. Ronald Gray was on the brink of becoming the first military execution in almost 50 years.  .  .  .  But the week before Gray was to receive a lethal injection, a federal judge halted the execution because of a new appeal. . . .

[F]ederal defenders who took over his case say they’ve found new evidence that his original military lawyers should have discovered.

Sig Christenson at Military Reporters & Editors directs us to his piece at San Antonio Express News (of CAAF fame) about United States v. Hasan.

I recall the time in another high-profile case where the post, on the East Coast, demanded that journalists sign a ground rules agreement prior to entering the courtroom. . . . This sort of silliness has gone on elsewhere. At Fort Hood, they’ve told reporters not to ask certain types of questions if they should meet with prosecutors. The punishment for doing so? Expulsion from the court (emphasis added).  (Comment note:  wouldn’t the proper procedure be to allow questions or for the SJA to direct his TC’s not to make public comments on the case, and then if they didn’t want to, not answer the question – without of course any sort of ban on the person asking the question?)

.  .  .

Several cases have been decided by CAAF.

United States v. Baker.  Erdmann wrote for himself and Effron and Stucky, with Baker writing in dissent for himself and Ryan.

This was action on a government appeal under Article 62, UCMJ.  The ACCA reversed an identification suppression made by the military judge.

United States v. Gaddis was decided by CAAF.

Here are two pithy comments on the decision, one by DMLHS, and one by Professor Colin Miller.

Basically the opinion deals with the question of a complaining witness’s privacy.  Many TC and some judges apply the balancing test focused on prejudice to the complaining witness’s privacy.  As the CAAF held in Gaddis, that is the wrong analysis.

The Judge Advocate will be published on a quarterly basis in February, May, August, and November. The deadline for submissions for the November issue is October 15, 2011. Please consider writing a short or long piece on a topic of interest to the military legal community. Submissions may be sent to us at: execdir@jaa.org.

Although JAA publications are traditionally available only to Association members, we are making the August and November 2011 editions publicly available.

Of interest in this issue is a BCMR practice update by Alan Goldsmith.  Alan is one of the “insiders” on BCNR, with a profound knowledge and understanding of the process and the realities of BCMR practice. 

‘West Memphis Three’ case shows we see what we expect to see

Jennifer L. Mnookin, Special to the Los Angeles Times

Navy Times reports a very odd situation of a Coast Guard cutter XO being fired.

Army Times reports that Rentfrom was sentenced to [corrected, thanks to ML] Life but with eligibility for parole.  He will have to serve at least 10 years however, absent clemency action.  See 6.16.6.3.3, DODI 1325.7.

CAAF has added a useful tool for research on current issues.

Here is a link to the 11 October oral argument in Schumacher.  This is the first oral argument for the season.

You will note that there is a link to the briefs.  Note, these are the final briefs at CAAF, not the Supplements or the briefs from the court below.

Again courtesy of FourthAmendment.com

False representations by defendant’s wife, who was secretly working with the police, that if he did not consent, she was going to jail, which was false, vitiated defendant’s consent. United States v. Strange, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94094 (W.D. Mo. August 23, 2011)[.]

Query, what about law enforcement’s favorite trick of pretext phone calls?  Depending on what was said, could there be some sort of issue?

Courtesy of fourthamendment.com here is an interesting case – the operative language being, I suspect, “finding none.”  But the case may also having something to say about blanket search authorizations for which LE merely changes the name, in this case based on “tips” from NCMEC.

Franks violation leading to search warrant for child pornography, finding none, leads to civil rights liability for the investigators. Chism v. Washington State, 10-35085 (9th Cir. August 25, 2011).

We reverse the district court’s judgment and remand this case for trial. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Chisms, we conclude that the Chisms have made a substantial showing of the officers’ deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth and have established that, but for the dishonesty, the searches and arrest would not have occurred. We also conclude that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because the Chisms’ right to not be searched and arrested as a result of judicial deception was clearly established at the time Gardner prepared and submitted her affidavit.