Nathaniel Penn gives us a piece of investigative journalism in his new article on Army 1st LT Clint Lorance. This is the sordid saga of a LT whose actions wreaked havoc on those within his platoon, whom a panel (jury) of Army Soldiers convicted of murder, and whom President Trump later pardoned after Fox News transformed Lorance into a weapon in the polarizing culture wars it has helped fuel.
The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice has submitted its subcommittee’s Prosecutorial Authority Study report in response to § 540F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. The report, which cost the taxpayers $109,000 (that’s $1185 per page, if you don’t count the appendices), can be found here. There’s also a one-page summary here.
Just Security discusses minimization of civilian casualties beyond that required by military necessity.
Against this backdrop, an important symposium series, “Civilian Casualties: The Law of Prevention and Response,” is kicking off on Wednesday (September 30) at noon EDT. The series is intended to promote deeper discussion and greater understanding of the broad range of considerations that underlie these critical issues. Conceived originally (before the pandemic) as a one-day event in Washington — part of the Signature Topic Initiative on Atrocity Prevention, sponsored by the American Society of International Law (ASIL) — the revamped online symposium format will facilitate a far wider range of participants as the Symposium takes a hard, honest look at these issues.
There will be six expert panels spread over a six-week period, each discussing a distinct area of law and policy on civilian casualties, each drawing from leaders and emerging voices from the military and government, civil society and humanitarian organizations, and academia. The U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Lt. Gen. Charles Pede, will provide introductory keynote remarks on Wednesday. That will set the stage for the first week’s panel: “Compliance Professionals, The Law, and Ethics: Advising Leaders and Influencing Operations from the Front Lines.”
The Fort Drum soldier charged with carrying a “ghost gun” at a Black Lives Matter protest in June in Troy has left the Army.
A Fort Drum official confirmed Noah Latham, 22, is no longer in the Army, as of Aug. 31. Mr. Latham was “separated administratively” from the Army, the official said.
The Jeffrey MacDonald murder case: A timeline of a major events.
One of North Carolina’s most infamous murder cases is back in the national spotlight, with the release this week of the FX documentary series “A Wilderness of Error.”
Former Green Beret Army doctor Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted in 1979 of the murders of his pregnant wife, Colette, and two small daughters, Kimberley, 6, and Kristen, 2, in their Fort Bragg, N.C., apartment in 1970.
We do that–right. Make an issue of the MCIO failures to investigate, their tunnel vision, their confirmation bias, and overall bias.
Here’s an Article that might help.
Lisa Steele, Investigating and Presenting an Investigative Omission Defense. 57 CRIM. L. BULL. (2021) (Forthcoming).
NMCCA published new rules effective 1 July 2020. Not this change. I’m agnostic whether this change will add confusion or not for the litigants.
Rule 17.5. Table of Pseudonyms.
(a) With the exception of merits briefs, all initial briefs in support of an appeal or petition shall include a separate table of pseudonyms filed with the Court under seal. See Appendix K. Notwithstanding the fact that the table is filed under seal, the party filing the table will serve an unredacted copy of the table upon all other parties to the appellate litigation. Absent Order of the Court, all parties and the Court shall use the aassigned pseudonymsin all filings, orders, and opinions.
14 September 2020, the court issued a published opinion in United States v. Livak, it’s a Moreno case analyzed with the new rules in mind.
Appellant claims that his due process rights were violated when his case was not docketed with this court within 30 days of the convening authority’s action as required by United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006). Finding no error that resulted in material prejudice to Appellant’s substantial rights, we affirm the findings and sentence.” The court reviews the case considering the new post-trial rules for events at the trial stage. The takeaway point are,
A colleague provided this thought.
I refer from time to time to court-martial decisions from other countries. Obviously, they are not dispositive here, but there can be some interesting arguments or points come from them, which is why I bring you R v. Jordan, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada addressing court-martial speedy trial issues.
In Jordan the appellant sought dismissal of his case for a denial of speedy trial. In summary, the court argued,
Per Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté and Brown JJ.: The delay was unreasonable and J’s s. 11(b) Charter right was infringed. The Morin framework for applying s. 11(b) has given rise to both doctrinal and practical problems, contributing to a culture of delay and complacency towards it. Doctrinally, the Morin framework is too unpredictable, too confusing, and too complex. It has itself become a burden on already over‑burdened trial courts. From a practical perspective, the Morin framework’s after‑the‑fact rationalization of delay does not encourage participants in the justice system to take preventative measures to address inefficient practices and resourcing problems.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
