Here is a new piece of information from wing nut daily:
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, a distinguished Army flight surgeon, is "certain" to be convicted of disobeying orders, according to his lawyer, Neil Puckett.
Notice he does not apparently address the missing movement. Maybe the “specific” movement issue is a winner? See below.
CAAF has decided three cases, Blazier of course being one of them. I was the trial defense counsel in the case so no comment from me on the case so far. Here is the brief for petitioner in Bullcoming v. New Mexico. Professor Friedman has posted this at his excellent confrontationblog site. I had anticipated CAAF might await a decision in Bullcoming. But, in discussions with DMLHS last night it appeared that Bullcoming wouldn’t likely be argued until early 2011, and there are a potential lot of military cases building up.
United States v. Staton decided this issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO KILL OR INJURE THE ORIGINAL TRIAL COUNSEL.
An important change to the Federal Rules of Evidence begins today. That means, absent Presidential action, the rule will take affect in the military no later than 18 months from now. This is a significant change requiring the prosecution to corroborate statements against penal interest.
On December 1, 2010, a new amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence takes effect. The rule concerns the admission of statements against interest under FRE 804(b)(3) has been amended so that the corroborating circumstances requirement for admission of a declaration against interest applies to statements against penal interest introduced by the government as well as those by the defendant in criminal cases. This requirement previously applied to statements introduced by the defendant.
See Mil. R. Evid. 1102. Thanks to FederalEvidenceReview for the reminder.
The Supremes will here an important FOIA case today, Milner v. Dept. of the Navy. Here is a link to the SCOTUSBlog information.
A thought as we get closer to trial. As the Greeley Gazette article and the current postings at such places as PostandEmail, safeguardourconstitution, and wing nut daily, demonstrate there is a great deal of criticism about Judge Lind. Some of that criticism has been harsh and excessive. Other than a statement from LTC Lakin’s lawyer that the judge was right, there has been no public disavowel from LTC Lakin. I don’t know he required to do so, except in an effort to get clemency. But . . . .
Will the new defense counsel voir dire the military judge and challenge her or ask her to recuse herself? If this is to be a members trial, then I think she can clearly say the right words in response to a voir dire and not recuse herself and not to have been found in error on appeal. But, what if LTC Lakin elects a judge alone trial? Maybe that’s different (unless it is part of a PTA)? Implied bias can be a reason to challenge a military judge just as much as members. Remember the Marine case from some years ago, where the SJA got heavily involved in trying to remove the MJ because of her alleged relationship with the defense counsel.
As trial approaches the Greeley Gazette has an article part of which notes that the case is now something of a comedy routine on the late night shows. Apparently being the focus of a skit on SNL adds merit.
LTC Lakin’s brother Greg is a lawyer as well as a doctor. There is an interesting comment:
Greg stated that he has not received any response to his letters and is concerned the Army will simply take the easy way out by avoiding the issue and simply lock up his brother. He said based on his experience as a prosecutor in situations like this where there is no case law, “Judges go in with a pre-determined idea how they are going to decide it and take case law and policy statements to say whatever they want. There is no magic law that supports either position.”
The Navy Times reports:
The civilian attorney for a cruiser skipper fired for cruelty and mistreatment of her crew told a board of inquiry in his opening statement Tuesday that his client had been the victim of a sexist and vengeful wardroom of incompetent officers and an inspector general’s investigation with a foregone conclusion.
Prior posting about this and other CO firings here and here.
Now available:
Command Influence: A story of Korea and the politics of injustice, Robert A Shaines
Robert A. Shaines today announced the release of Command Influence, A Story of Korea and the Politics of Injustice, published by Outskirts Press. Shaines’ fascinating peek into this less than honorable moment in American history shows not only the wholesale problems that permeated the military justice system at that time, but also the lack of preparedness of America to engage in the Korean War, both in terms of our foreign policy and our military’s lack of equipment and training.
Professor Colin Miller has this useful reminder of the effects from Berghuis v. Thompkins.
Say Anything?: Jeopardy Question About New Miranda Opinion Gets It Almost Completely Correct
Last night’s episode of Jeopardy! featured the category "A Murder Investigation," with The Closer’s Kyra Sedgwick reading the clues. The $1000 clue in the category was:
Here is an interesting read. Kathrine J. Chapman, The Untouchables: Private Military Contractors’ Criminal Accountability under the UCMJ, 63 VANDERBILT L. REV. 1047 (2010).
The author argues that:
PMCs must be held accountable for their criminal actions, not merely to provide personal justice for those injured by their crimes, but also for the strategic objectives of organizing the U.S. military’s
available manpower effectively and retaining the support of citizens both domestic and abroad. At the same time, it is simply impractical to bring criminal sanctions against all PMCs for every possible crime
that they might commit. Criminal sanctions against contractors should, at the very least, reach egregious crimes and should focus on quasi-military PMCs. Operating at the battlefront, quasi-military PMCs pose the greatest threat to the U.S. military’s ability to control the contingency operation. Additionally, because they bear arms and wear uniforms like members of the U.S. military, the local populace is more likely to attribute their actions to the U.S. military. By providing justice for victims, criminal sanctions will further the strategic goal of winning the locals’ support and trust during counterinsurgency efforts.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
