Army Times reports:
A military officer has ordered a mental evaluation for the suspect in the November Fort Hood shootings before a key hearing next week.
Earlier this year, Army officials appointed a three-member board of military mental health professionals to determine whether Maj. Nidal Hasan is competent to stand trial and his mental status the day of the Nov. 5 shooting.
AP reports:
A U.S. Coast Guard investigating officer has found no legal justification for the deadly collision of a Coast Guard boat with a smaller vessel in San Diego Bay that killed an 8-year-old boy, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.
San Diego 6 reports:
AFCCA issued an opinion in United States v. Rettinghouse today. It was an Article 62, UCMJ, appeal, with some teaching points.
I note this issue arose because of – yes – trial counsel discovery violations, and then a refusal to accede to the judge’s remedy of producing witnesses for the defense. See a post here.
I am informed that the issue of potential Brady material came up through an inadvertent disclosure at some sort of semi-official gathering at which the trial and defense counsel were present. I likened this method of disclosure as doing a reverse Ankeny. That’s in reference to United States v. Ankeny, 28 M.J. 780 (N.M.C.M.R. 1989). (Interestingly this case is another CAAF case cited in a federal habeas proceeding for a non-military accused. See Nickely v. Hannigan, 869 F. Supp. 875 (D.C. Kan. 1994). In Ankeny it was the defense who made the inadvertent disclosure to the prosecutor.
The Seattle Times reports (on a Ramrod Five/Stryker Brigade case):
The Army has postponed a hearing that had been scheduled for Tuesday for Staff Sgt. David Bram, who faces charges of conspiracy, striking another soldier, cruelty, dereliction of duty and impeding an investigation while serving in southern Afghanistan.
Military.com reports (no surprise here, the surprise would be not seeking a capital referral):
Thanks to DMLHS who pointed out that Neal was also denied today along with Loving.
No. 08–1476. Dwight J. Loving, Petitioner v. Department of Defense, et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Page 183 here.
The APF website is back up!
The American Patriot Foundation is pleased to announce that LTC Lakin has repositioned his forces, has retained new legal counsel, and is extremely grateful that the Foundation will be dedicating the critical next few weeks before his planned court-martial on November 3-5, to focusing entirely on public affairs, strategic communications/messaging and coalition-building and that their support will continue seamlessly as the new attorney prepares for trial. CLICK HERE FOR FULL PRESS RELEASE.
The release partly says:
Here is a case of interest for those who do security clearance work. As part of that practice it’s not unusual to have a civilian employee or contractor with a position of public trust issue or background investigation and an SF85. CAC cards don’t always get issued without a favorable SF 85 determination.
On Tuesday, 5 October 2010, the Supreme Court will hear argument in NASA v. Nelson, (I have linked to the as always pithy review from SCOTUSBlog).
The Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution provides some protection for a right to keep private some personal information about one’s self — for example, medical information, financial matters, and sexual activity. But the Supreme Court has not closely focused on the scope of that right in 33 years. A case about the government’s power to seek access to some personal information, during a background employment or security check, puts the issue back before the Court — with the potential for a sweeping constitutional ruling, or a narrow one closely limited to specific facts.
United States v. Sagona, sentenced at court-martial on 8 May 2008, appeal decided 30 September 2010.
The issue was IAC of trial defense counsel who allegedly failed to investigate and advise on a potential defense of immunity. R.C.M. 704 covers the issues of immunity, tempered by case law. Basically only the GCMCA can grant immunity, but . . . . Cooke v. Orser, 12 M.J. 335 (C.M.A, 1982), is one of the more well known cases about immunity outside the R.C.M. and UCMJ requirements.
The court in Sagona had ordered a Dubay hearing. See United States v. DuBay, 37 C.M.R. 411 (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (C.M.A. 1986).
With LTC Lakin’s change in civilian counsel the question is, who will pay his legal fees.
The APF said this up until the item was removed (mostly) from the web:
American Patriot Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin’s attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
