Court-Martial Trial Practice

. . .  in more ways than one.

Military.com reports that:  The commanding officer of the fast attack submarine USS Connecticut was fired Monday after an investigation into the mishandling of classified information.

Navy Times reports that:  The commanding officer of the medium-endurance cutter Diligence was fired Tuesday by the Coast Guard’s Atlantic Area commander, who cited a loss in confidence in the officer’s ability to command related to a grounding last month, according to a news release.

Pilot online is reporting that the XO, USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, has been to flag mast for an inappropriate relationship and has been relieved for cause.

CBS Miami reports that the accused and appellant in United States v. Seldes has been granted a licence to practice medicine.

Navy and Marine Corps Times are reporting that:  A Marine corporal accused of stabbing another corporal to death in Afghanistan last summer has been charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter, Marine officials said.  Cpl. William C. Dalton will face general a court-martial at Camp Lejeune, N.C., beginning June 16[.]

Professor Colin Miller discusses an interesting situation of lip reading and lip reading testimony as an issue under Crawford v. Washington.

Joint Base Charleston is reporting: 

Airman 1st Class Dustin Miller from the 628th Security Forces Squadron was found guilty at a General Court-Martial of three charges; Article 80 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for attempted murder, Article 128 of the UCMJ for assault with a loaded firearm and Article 134 of the UCMJ for attempting to commit murder by assault. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 11 years, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a reduction to E-1.
Staff Sgt. Adam Ruyle from the 437th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron was found guilty at a Special Court-Martial of three charges; Article 86 of the UCMJ for Absent Without Leave, Article 92 of the UCMJ for misuse of his Government Travel Card and Article 107 of the UCMJ for making a false official statement. He was sentenced to six months confinement, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge.

McElhaney on evidence.

The Dirty Dozen:  12 Ways to Write a Really Bad Brief.

Here is CAAF’s journal entry for United States v. Prince.

No. 11-6003/AR. U.S. v. Michael A. PRINCE. CCA 20100939. On further consideration of the certified issue, 69 M.J. 499 (C.A.A.F. 2011), the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, we note that when acting on interlocutory appeals under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2006), we may only act with respect to matters of law. United States v. Cossio, 64 M.J. 254, 256 (C.A.A.F. 2007); Article 67(c), UCMJ. To overturn a military judge’s evidentiary ruling on appeal, there must be a showing that the challenged ruling was an abuse of discretion. United Statesv. Taylor , 53 M.J. 195, 199 (C.A.A.F. 2000). In view of the evidence of record, the military judge did not err as a matter of law. Accordingly, the certified issue is answered in the negative and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

ACCA had said:

Stars & Stripes reports:  Six crewmembers from the USS Patriot face administrative separation from the Navy after they were found guilty of hazing during Captain’s Mast, Navy officials said Friday.

AP reports:  The Air Force has discharged an airman under the law banning gays from serving openly in the military, the first firing since President Barack Obama signed legislation aimed at ending the ban.

You will recollect the Velasquez case.  The issues of VWAP and ultimately a number of Navy JA’s getting fired.  Stars & Stripes reports:  A former Navy doctor convicted of wrongful sexual contact with patients in Japan and Kuwait had his medical license revoked by the issuing state of California on May 26, according to public records.

United States v. Marsh.

This was a case where the appellant was complaining about the TC’s argument on sentencing:  an improper comment on his right to make an unsworn statement, and inflammatory comments.  CAAF holds no improper comment on the unsworn, but there was improper inflammatory comment by the TC.

Marsh argues that the trial counsel unduly inflamed the passions of the court members on two grounds: his conviction for false official statement bears no relevance to his duty or ability to repair aircraft; and, the trial counsel invited the court members to put themselves in an aircraft repaired by Marsh and then instilled fear that the aircraft would crash.