Courtesy of cunninghamreport.com here are links to the Article 32, IO, report and recommendations.
Ramos Charges
Howell Charges
Rasmussen Charges
Couple of interesting points.
Inside Bay Area has a piece about corruption in the California National Guard.
From 1986 until her retirement last year, Jaffe’s job with the California Army National Guard was to give away money — the federally subsidized student-loan repayments and cash bonuses — paid for by federal taxpayers nationwide — that the Guard is supposed to use to attract new recruits and encourage Guard members to re-enlist.
Instead, according to a Guard auditor turned federal whistle-blower, as much as $100 million has gone to soldiers who didn’t qualify for the incentives, including some who got tens of thousands of dollars more than the program allows.
I use Google Chrome for a browser so this wasn’t apparent to me. But Dr. C. at obamaconspiracy.org points out the following:
I have no way of knowing whether LtC Terry Lakin authorized the use of his image to sell tax advice, bridge loans, auto liability insurance, and whatever other advertising attaches itself to his photo over at WorldNetDaily (hover mouse anywhere over the photo at WND for maximum advertising effect). Nonetheless, I think this image, as much as any other, points out how this honorable, but confused, soldier has become the tool of [select a name].
Of course when viewed in MSIE you can see what the doctor ordered.
ACCA has released an opinion in United States v. Martinez. Here is the first issue:
WHETHER A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD QUESTION THE TRIAL JUDGE’S IMPARTIALITY WHEN A SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE, WHO APPEARED TO HAVE ASSISTED THE GOVERNMENT DURING TRIAL, ENTERED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S CHAMBERS DURING RECESS AND DELIBERATIONS, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
This appears to be an interesting situation of the supervising judge from the gallery seeing some things going wrong with how the judge was conducting the case. The supervising judge ended up communicating to the trial judge initially through trial counsel, in the court-room, while trial was ongoing. The contacts with trial counsel are described as “irregular.”
Thanks to CrimProfBlog here is a link to an interesting post on Grits for Breakfast, with potential for relevance in a court-martial tried under the UCMJ, with examiners from USACIL and DCFL, etc.
There was an astonishing moment yesterday at a breakout session on fingerprint examination at theTexas Forensic Science Seminar, at which Department of Public Safety fingerprint examiner Bryan Strong (who seemed like a really nice guy so I hate to pick on him) was describing how his division implemented the ACEV method of fingerprint examination in ways that may violate the state and prosecutors’ obligations under Brady v. Maryland.
blah, blah.
All service members are encouraged to vote. You can make donations. You can attend political functions, but not in uniform.
Here the Marine Times points out that there are some considerations and limits on political activity.
DoDD 1344.10.
Here’s an interesting piece in the Veterans Today.
REPORT prepared for the State Bar of Texas Annual Meeting, Military Law Committee Correction of Military Records and Judicial Review, has proven to be a shocker, and, should OUTRAGE every veteran ! Why you ask, well hold the phone.
I would suggest this “report” is not news. The writer and presenter is described as follows:
I posted the other day about the defense refusal to cooperate in a scheduled R.C.M. 706 board.
Mr. Galligan’s website now points to this CNN piece. The title of his posting is, “Army Attempts Last Minute Changes to Sanity Board.” The CNN piece makes several observations.
Thanks to Raymond Ward’s the (new) legal writer here is an article about brief (motions?) writing.
Prof. Ken Chestek of the Indiana University School of Law recently conducted a study, trying to determine empirically whether a brief with an element of storytelling is more persuasive or less persuasive than a purely logical, law-driven brief.
He published the results of his study in an article that you can download here. Although (as Prof. Chestek acknowledges) the sample size may be too small to draw definitive conclusions, the study’s results suggest that storytelling makes for a more persuasive brief.
Evan Schaeffer has posted an interesting tip, reminder, on his Trial Practice Tips Weblog. There are two requirements for success in exposing the liar.
First, you must be certain that you can establish that the witness has a "clear-cut motive to fabricate that the jury will understand";
Second, you must be certain that you have at least one "clean substantive line of cross-examination" during which you can establish that the witness probably lied.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
