Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

CAAF issues opinion in Jones

January 13, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Jones.

A convoluted case about the accused’s ability to review CP images in preparation for his providence inquiry.

We conclude that the denial of the requests to review
evidence under the circumstances of this case did not
violate the Sixth Amendment because Appellant did not seek
to review the evidence to prepare a defense, and that
Appellant’s unconditional guilty plea waived appellate
review of the denial of his discovery requests under Rule
for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 701. And we agree with the
NMCCA that, considering the stipulation of fact in
conjunction with Appellant’s providence inquiry, there was
no substantial basis in law or fact for the military judge
to reject Appellant’s guilty plea in this case. Jones,
2009 CCA LEXIS 356, at *21, 2009 WL 3435920, at *7.

Did you notice

January 12, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

As federalevidencereview notes:

[A]llowing a court to take judicial notice often presents a proponent of its use with a useful short-cut in proof of adjudicative facts. But it is important to draw a distinction between the fact noticed and the logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact.

From time to time you will see a prosecutor want to have judicial notice of facts, but include in their motion their argument or conclusions. Remember that there must be a foundation for the notice offered at the time of the request. For example a calendar for judicial notice that a date fell on a particular day of the week, or a copy of the regulation or statute.

CAAF publishes Hutchins

January 11, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Hutchins.

Chief Judge Effron writes for a unanimous court.

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy certified the case to this Court for review of the following issues:
I. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SEVERED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH CAPTAIN BASS?
II. WHETHER UNDER R.C.M. 505(d)(2)(B), THE NAVYMARINE CORPS COURT INCORRECTLY FOUND NO “GOOD CAUSE” ON THE RECORD FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF APPELLANT’S SECOND DETAILED DEFENSE COUNSEL WITH ANOTHER COUNSEL?
III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD AND ERRONEOUSLY PRESUMED, WITHOUT ASSESSING, PREJUDICE AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCE, WHERE APPELL[EE]’S STATUTORY RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WERE SATISFIED THROUGH TRIAL?

New Mexico brief-Bullcoming

January 11, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Prof. Friedman links to the respondents’s brief in Bullcoming v. New Mexico.

Two Supremes grants

January 10, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Two Supreme Court grants of certiorari should be of interest to MJ practitioners. Here are links to SCOTUSBLog for the case materials.

Missouri v. Frye

Issue: Can a defendant who validly pleads guilty assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that, but for counsel’s error in failing to communicate a plea offer, he would have pleaded guilty with more favorable terms? What remedy, if any, should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures?

Wuterich decided

January 10, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

On Friday, NMCCA decided U.S. v. Wuterich.

More later, but:

In response to Orders issued by this court, the respondents produced the required transcripts, relevant exhibits, and a sealed memorandum prepared by the military judge recounting an ex parte hearing he conducted with defense counsel on the severance issue. Having reviewed the record and pleadings of the parties, we find that the military judge’s detailed, complete findings of fact are well-supported and not clearly erroneous. Having completed our review, we conclude that the sealed memorandum should remain sealed, and that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in severing the attorney-client relationship.

Post-trial duties

January 9, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

NMCCA has decided United States v. Owens.

The appellant asserts that the attorney-client relationship with his detailed trial defense counsel was terminated without good cause, leaving the appellant legally and factually without post-trial representation. The basis for the appellant’s claim is that substitute counsel failed to establish an attorney-client relationship with the appellant prior to receipt of the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR).

The court makes clear in footnote 3, that:

Evidence past and present

January 8, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Federal Evidence Review now has their annual retro and prospective reviews of noteworthy evidence issues for 2010 and 2011 online.

Key Evidence Issues During 2010

1. Supreme Court Watch: Briscoe v. Virginia – Confrontation Clause – No New Guidance On Forensic Laboratory Analysis

Motivation

January 8, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

To stay out of trouble.

To work hard for you clients.

Labor Department employment statistics released Friday show that young veterans continue to have serious and growing problems finding work in a tight job market, while older veterans are doing better than the general population.

Marine Corps Times comments

January 8, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Good luck to any court-martialed sailor or Marine who is found guilty of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice and tries to appeal.

Luck is indeed what they may need, given the shortcomings of the appeals process cited by the Defense Department Inspector General.

The IG released a damning report in December, slamming the Navy and Marine Corps for “at least two decades” of serious deficiencies in handling appeals of general and special courts-martial convictions.