Court-Martial Trial Practice

Stars & Stripes reports:

In response to Rolling Stone’s article accusing a top general in Afghanistan of instructing subordinates to use psychological operations techniques on visiting U.S. dignitaries, the general’s chief spokesman, Lt. Col. Shawn Stroud, has sent a “personal message” to colleagues and members of the media to “categorically deny the assertion.”

New York Times reports:

The Post & Email has a piece titled:  Citizen to Sen. Scott Brown: Investigate Alleged Military Corruption:  SENATOR IS AWOL WHEN IT COMES TO CONVICTED SERGEANT OF MARINES FROM HIS OWN STATE.

The following letter was sent by Sgt. Timothy J. Harrington to Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown regarding Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins, who was court-martialed and received an 11-year sentence for allegedly killing an Iraqi man in 2006.  Hutchins has served four years of that sentence at Ft. Leavenworth, was released for nine months pending his appeal, butreturned to prison on Friday, February 18, 2011.

AP reports:

Eight years ago, a child protection investigator and a deputy sheriff removed a 9-year-old Oregon girl from her classroom and questioned her at length as to whether her father had sexually abused her. According to the girl, they wouldn’t take "no" for an answer, and she falsely incriminated her father.

Based on the aggressive and zealous efforts of military FAP’s and others this case is worth following. 

Thanks to Howard Bashman at How Appealing, here is a link to United States v. Steen, a Fifth Circuit case involving a prosecution under 18 U. S. Code § 2251(a).

Alan Ray Steen appeals his jury conviction for one count of production of child pornography for video he surreptitiously recorded in a tanning salon, while the subject of the video was unaware of the filming…. As we will explain, Steen did not violate the statute he was charged with offending. We therefore REVERSE Steen’s conviction.

Having had a couple of these types of cases I found this interesting.

It looks like some Blazier trailers are starting to come out:

United States v. Dollar:

We consider whether the preadmission of two drug testing reports violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.  In light of United States v. Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (Blazier II), we find error under the Confrontation Clause and remand to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) for consideration of whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Military.com reports:

The Air Force has started drug testing airmen for synthetic forms of marijuana this week, making it the first service to announce such screening.

What actually they will be testing for is clear.  But it’s not spice, which is actually salvia divornium; that can’t be tested for currently.  Other drugs incorrectly called “spice” can be.  These misnamed new drugs are manufactured and can be tested for; essentially you have a form of marijuana.  I’m wondering if the lack of specificity and the confusing over what is spice or isn’t may be way to litigate these cases.

2 March 2011, Bullcoming v. New Mexico will be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court.

KDHNews.com reports:s

Maj. Nidal Hasan’s defense team met with Col. Morgan Lamb, the special court-martial convening authority in his case today.
The meeting provided the defense team, led by retired Col. John Galligan, an opportunity to present any matters for Lamb’s consideration before he takes action as a convening authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Courtesy of LawProfsBlog.

The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: The Century of Fourth Amendment ‘Search and Seizure’ Doctrine

Thomas Y. Davies
University of Tennessee College of Law
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 933-1041, 2010
University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. #137

Here is one of those occasional outside the mjWire cases of interest.

The police responded to a 911 call about a “break-in” and a shooting. They found the defendant outside the house, confused and under the likely influence of drugs. The did a “protective sweep” on exigency and found drug stuff. They proceeded to search. The USMJ recommended suppression for lack of a warrant, and the USDJ agrees. The proper recourse was to get a search warrant and not rely on a alleged consent from a man they admit was hallucinating. Motion to suppress granted for lack of a warrant. United States v. Einerson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15633 (D. Neb. February 16, 2011).

Thanks to fourthamendmentblog.