Is how one of my favorite evidence blog prof’s describes a First Circuit case. I have previously commented on the issue in relation to MJ McDonald’s Army Lawyer article.
Federal Rule of Evidence 605 provides that
The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.
More stories are coming out about what the accused’s are alleged to have done in regard to trophies.
Here is a military.com piece:
The father of a U.S. Soldier serving in Afghanistan says he tried nearly a half dozen times to pass an urgent message from his son to the Army: Troops in his unit had murdered an Afghan civilian, planned more killings and threatened him to keep quiet about it.
For various reasons the issue of homosexuality and DADT has been in the news for a while. The results of the various surveys to servicemembers and familys are still pending.
Tomorrow, NMCCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Hayes:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S COMMENTS ON THE RECORD AND DURING THE “BRIDGING THE GAP” DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNSEL REFLECT AN ACTUAL BIAS AGAINST THE APPELLANT’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION, RESULTING IN THE MILITARY JUDGE’S DISQUALIFICATION FROM PRESIDING OVER APPELLANT’S COURT-MARTIAL?
The Guardian (UK) has this report:
Twelve American soldiers face trial over an secret "kill team" that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies.
Five of the soldiers are charged with murdering three Afghan men who were allegedly killed for sport in separate attacks this year. Seven other soldiers are accused of covering up the killings as well as a violent assault on a new recruit who exposed the murders when he reported other abuses, including members of the unit smoking hashish stolen from civilians.
San Diego Online has this short piece on the Coast Guard boating case and the ongoing Article 32, UCMJ, hearing which began today.
Lawyers for the driver of a Coast Guard boat that killed an 8-year-old San Diego boy in December said the Coast Guard is prosecuting Petty Officer 3rd Class Paul Ramos in order to duck responsibility, and a lawsuit.
“The family is rightly suing the Coast Guard,” said Navy Cmdr. Brian Koshulsky, one of Ramos’ military attorneys. “It’s in the Coast Guard’s interest to blame my client.”
Here are some interesting tidbits from the CAAF orientation session for new attorneys courtesy of NIMJ.blog.
As for the rules changes, a big (and quite welcome, in my opinion) change is the new system in which nearly all CAAF pleadings are eligible for electronic filing. Be sure to redact privacy/sensitive information from such filings, as final briefs will be placed on CAAF’s webpage, starting this term.
Other changes make the already small needle’s eye to SCOTUS more microscopic for military appeals. While CAAF judges previously granted review of all appeals in which the appellant was serving 30 years or more in confinement, that is no longer the policy. Furthermore, for cases that come back to CAAF after a remand to the CCAs, CAAF will no longer automatically grant review of the case.
Here is an interesting technology case from the Third Circuit as reported by the Wall Street Journal blog.
Technology has made it increasingly easy for the government to track an individual’s whereabouts.
But on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit ratcheted back the government’s surveillance power, finding that judges have the right to require warrants before police get cell phone records that could pinpoint a customer’s location. Clickhere for the AP story; here for the Legal Intelligencer story; herefor the opinion, written by Judge Dolores Sloviter.
North Country Times and Marine Corps Times report:
[T]he trial for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich was delayed until Nov. 1 because a key prosecution witness, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent, had a bad accident and is recovering from surgery.
Air Force Times reports:
And now for the political question doctrine.
See fn. 2., I believe at one point Mr. Jensen was complaining that the military judge wasn’t going to apply any “civilian” cases.
See fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.
And now for some history. Those with some basic familiarity with military law and who have been following the blogs of those with military law experience will recognize the cases cited.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
