Misc. No. 11-8009/MC. Frank D. WUTERICH, Appellant v. David L. Jones, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Marine Corps, in his capacity as Military Judge, and United States, Appellees. CCA 200800183. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.
The September Army Lawyer is online.
There are five articles of interest to MJ practitioners.
Army Review Boards and Military Personnel Law Practice and Procedure, this is by Jan Serene, he is a master of these issues so civilian practitioners can gain some good insight here.
Thanks to Sentencing Law & Policy:
PBS Frontline has been giving lots of attention to criminal justice systems this fall. . . . This week Frontline will broadcast a new documentary "The Confessions," which examines the case of the "Norfolk Four" involving a quartet of Navy men who were wrongfully convicted after being coerced into giving false confessions.
A preview is at this link.
Lexington Herald-Leader reports:
Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs’ big talk about killing Afghan civilians and getting away with it made him stand out when he joined a new platoon at an Army base in southern Afghanistan a year ago, according to written statements from his comrades.
Some of his Stryker platoon mates from Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Wash., told investigators they didn’t know what to make of him. They thought he must be kidding.
Navy Times reports:
The former executive officer of an amphibious ship that lost a sailor during a 2009 small-boat operation that went awry was found not guilty of negligence by a six-member military jury here Friday night.
Seattle Times reports:
Here courtesy of Obama Conspiracy Theories is the Congressional Research Service legal opinion on, well . . . . . . ..
Members of Congress Memo–What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions
Pilotonline reports that the court-martial for the former XO of the USS SAN ANTONIO is underway at Norfolk.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Sean Kearns’ court-martial on a charge of negligence in his duties as executive officer of the ship San Antonio began Monday – but he’s not the only one on trial.
The proceeding – related to the death of a sailor during a deployment last year – could give the already bruised San Antonio ship program yet another black eye. . . .
My good friend Bill Cassara and I have done a lot of BAH/TCS fraud cases at court-martial under the UCMJ over the years. Typically the case involves a lot of documents from DFAS. The prosecution then calls a witness from DFAS to lay a foundation for the documents and then has the witness testify as to what the documents mean in terms of monies claimed and paid compared to the legal entitlements. Because these documents are of many pages the witness typically prepares a chart which summarizes the documents and the bottom lines. There is nothing wrong with that so long as the underlying documents are admissible (usually as business records and documents prepared and submitted by the accused), the chart is an accurate representation of the documents, and the witness who prepared the chart or summary is available for cross-examination.
The case of United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 8, 2008) (Nos. 06-3088, 06-3089, 07-3016), noted by federalevidence.com, reminds us of this point.
Cross-examination might expose errors or inconsistencies in the chart. At which point the parties can refer to the original documents if necessary. Assuming the errors or inconsistencies are identified and cross-examined on the testimony is then judged as to its weight not admissibility.
A reader on Military.com asks this question:
Q: I’m 18 years active duty with the US Navy. I was an E-6 from 2000–2009 but got busted for UCMJ violation to E-5. I fall under the High-3 plan for retirement and a lot of my friends are saying that when I retire, I will get the E-6 retirement pay, but then again, some of my friends are saying I will not — which is true?
The answer given is:
Here is an upublished opinion in the Court of Appeals, First Circuit, State of Louisana, in State v. Davis.
Note, this case was a court-martial tried under the Louisiana Code of Military Justice (a National Guard case).
La. R.S. 29:101-242, applies to all members of the state military forces when not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and while in a duty status or under a lawful order to be in a duty status. The processing of charges and all proceedings, including trial, may be conducted without regard to the duty status of the accused. La. R.S. 29:102(A) and (C).
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
