Court-Martial Trial Practice

Ventura County Star has this posting.

Aaron Sorkin’s “A Few Good Men” makes a few good points about military honor and justice. Sorkin, who also was the chief writer for TV’s lively “West Wing,” brought forth “Men” in 1989, when its issues were underscored by the possibility of global war. But the basic question of fidelity to military command resurfaces with unsettling regularity, from Nuremberg to Abu Ghraib. The problem often involves whether criminal deeds were done by soldiers freelancing, or rather as a response to suggestions or direct commands from higher authorities. Clearly it can be a complex puzzle separating the two and deciding where responsibility lies.

Nothing like being out for a few days, and a lot happens.

Navy Times reports:  CAPT Honors’ BOI recommended retention.

The board did not elaborate on why it found Honors had committed those offenses but should remain in the Navy. The government had been asking that Honors be honorably discharged.  . . . Although Honor’s career won’t come to an abrupt halt for disciplinary reasons, it is still possible he won’t remain in the service much longer. Honors is among those the Navy is considering for early retirement as it thins out its ranks to cut costs.

Well, that’s certainly the thrust of quite a bit of academic and other writings about how the “Roberts’ Court” approaches the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

Here is a piece within that group.

Jonathan Witmer-Rich, Interrogation and the Roberts Court, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1189 (2011)| PDF

Fairbanks Daily Newsminer.com reports:  A general court-martial for a Fort Wainwright soldier accused of killing his wife begins this week.

Spc. Aaron M. Rentfrow, 30, of Fort Wanye, Ind., faces charges of murder and kidnapping. The court-marital convened Monday morning and is expected to begin selecting a five-member panel of jurors this morning. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

Military justice practitioners will immediately see the significant error in this report – capital referral, “five member” panel?  If the case is referred non-capital, then the death penalty is not authorized, so the reference to five (at least five) is correct.

Professor Bergman notes a case from the Seventh.

Interesting ruling today by a split Seventh Circuit panel today in Chaidez v. US, No. 10-3623 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2011) (available here), starts this way:

In Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010), the Supreme Court held that an attorney provides ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform a client that a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation.  The district court concluded that Padilla did not announce a new rule under the framework set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and consequently applied its holding to Petitioner Roselva Chaidez’s collateral appeal.  Because we conclude that Padilla announced a new rule that does not fall within either of Teague’s exceptions, we reverse the judgment of the district court.

SimpleJustice blog has an interesting piece on the DSK rape case, and a link to the prosecution motion to dismiss.

I wonder if Article 32, IO’s, and Government Representatives (TC) could be so conscientious in investigating a military rape allegation and then presenting it to the CA?

As SJ notes, “The big question is whether this prosecutorial fiasco teaches any lessons from which we can draw conclusions about our legal system.  Each of us will take from this case whatever supports our religion[.]  There’s enough in this case to satisfy every perspective, and enough to allow us to argue that no other perspective could possibly be correct. ”

United States v. Christian, 63 M.J. 205, 206 (C.A.A.F. 2006).

This Court has granted review of two issues.  The first issue for our consideration is whether life without eligibility for parole (LWOP) was an authorized punishment at the time Appellant committed the offense of forcible sodomy of a child under twelve years of age.  We hold that LWOP was an authorized sentence and conclude that Appellant’s guilty plea was provident. 

  Ooops, no, I meant Christian v. Commandant.

Navy Times reports: 

The number of people to be cut by this year’s two enlisted retention boards has dropped by more than 200, based on an Aug. 1 quotas update released by personnel officials.

Perhaps they are making the numbers with misconduct separations.

I have previously posted about “context testimony” usually from law enforcement officers to set the stage for why an investigation began.  While not exactly addressing this issue, NMCCA has come close and has a useful discussion of how similar context evidence is not admissible.

In United States v. Combest (an unpublished op.) the court sets the facts.

Soon after arriving home [from apparently being assaulted], DW told her sister, AH, that she had been sexually assaulted by the appellant.  AH then called the police.  It is DW’s statement to AH that gives rise to the appellant’s assignment of error.

The prosecution, often routinely, denies or fails to answer requests for derogatory information in the personnel records of law enforcement personnel involved in a case.  Some cite United States v. Henthorn (note the NMCCA, in at least one court order, has noted that no military appellate court has ruled that Henthorn states the applicable rule).

Here, courtesy of fourthamendment.com is an interesting federal court case.

The right to compulsory production of the searching officer’s personnel file that was specific only for potential impeachment material would be enforced under United States v. Nixon, Rule 17(c) [Fed. R. Crim. Pro.], and Colorado’s privacy standards (People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662, 670 (Colo. 2010)). United States v. Neal, Civil Action No. 11-cr-00163-WJM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92151 (D. Colo. August 18, 2011):