Howard Bashman at howappealing found this article.
Today’s edition of The Montreal Gazette contains an article that begins, "When can a lawyer criticize a judge? Lawyers — as well as judges and professional orders representing lawyers across Canada — will be closely watching the outcome of a Supreme Court of Canada case that begins next Wednesday."
To me this was a no brainer. This —
Dayton Daily News reports:
Court-martial proceedings have arrived in southwestern Illinois for an Ohio-based chief master sergeant accused of sexually harassing 10 female subordinates.
Prior postings on this case are here.
United States v. Soto is decided and the findings and sentence have been set aside.
It was always my view that “terms” of a pretrial that clued the judge into sentence limits ought to go in the sentence Part II portion of the pretrial. So for example, a BCD striker clause seems like it ought to be in the Part II. But not according to CAAF. If the MJ knows up front there’s a BCD striker requirement then she knows there’s no BCD protection and likely other protections.
CAAF doesn’t say you can’t have such a provision, they kick that can down the road in footnote 1., they say it must be disclosed to the MJ during the Green/King inquiry.
Air Force Times reports:
A promiscuous Air Force technical sergeant was convicted Wednesday of exposing multiple unwitting sex partners to HIV at swinger parties.
He has been sentenced to eight years reports Military.com.
You’ll remember the Reserve O-6 who had some public comments about the usefulness of management by PowerPoint.
Thanks to my colleague at futurelawyer.com
Demonstrators rallied at Quantico in support of Pfc. Bradley Manning on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, singing civil rights anthem, “We Shall Overcome.” One protester tried to hand over a care package to Manning, who is in solitary at Quantico’s brig. It contained a donated CD, CD player, boxer shorts, a book, chocolate, and a Snuggie–but she was told to mail it.
As militarytimes blog notes, Manning and Assange look-alikes are becoming part of the aura around the case.
Professor Friedman has posted the States’ amicus brief in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, along with some rather trenchant dissection of their sky-is-falling and we-are-the-government arguments.
John Galligan bemoans the lack of funding to develop mitigation evidence.
The Hasan Defense Request for Additional Mitigation Funding, dated 7 January 2011, submitted to the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority, still has not been acted upon. By comparison, I am not aware of any funding request by US Army prosecutors that has not been timely and favorably approved . . . . . Why am I not surprised?
No John, why are we not surprised? In that respect United States v. Hasan is no different than other cases.
Federal Computer Week reports:
The Defense Department last year laid out the rules for the military’s use of social media with a set of guidelines that are set to expire on March 1.
Now what? That’s the question that people are asking.
Courtesy of a poster at CAAFLog here is a link to the motion for a new trial and the affidavit given by Dr. Macdonell.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
