Temple Daily News has this odd report concerning John Galligan.
A child molestation case in the Bell County court system more than a decade after the military closed it out took a bizarre turn Friday when a judge ruled the defense attorney must be removed because he could be a potential witness.
Lamar Andre Smith, 41, now of Georgia, appeared before Judge Fancy Jezek of 426th District Court wearing an orange jail-issued jumpsuit on Friday, his attorney John Galligan to his left.
Here is a link to the July Army Lawyer.
“I Won’t Participate in an Illegal War”: Military Objectors, the Nuremberg Defense, and the Obligation to Refuse Illegal Orders
United States v. Blazier: So Exactly Who Needs an Invitation to the Dance?
That is the headline from the Navy Times:
A judge has sentenced a former university student to join the military for a post he made on Facebook that led to a lockdown at Faulkner University here.
Zachary Lambert, 23, agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge of harassing communications for a message that made reference to a deadly campus attack at Virginia Tech in 2007. He originally was charged with making a terrorist threat, a felony, and placed in jail on $500,000 bond.
Yesterday I posted a Ramrod Five update and also the possibility that Dutch prosecutors may proceed against peacekeepers. Now UPI is reporting that:
A military prosecutor says she may pursue charges against several Australian troops in a raid in Afghanistan last year in which five children died.
Brig. Lyn McDade, the director of military prosecutions, says she is considering the unprecedented step of charging several Defense Force commandos, a move that has infuriated senior officers, The Sydney Morning Herald reported Thursday.
According to the Olympian:
A total of 12 soldiers from Joint Base Lewis-McChord face charges in a widening web of alleged misdeeds and conspiracy from their yearlong deployment to Afghanistan. . . .
The seven new defendants were charged this month with 33 charges, with the common thread being conspiracy to commit assault. It was not clear Wednesday who was the target of their alleged assault, although five of them are also charged with striking a fellow soldier.
I have been routinely filing a motion in-limine in cases where I expect the prosecution witnesses, typically law enforcement or DFAS, to be providing context testimony. There are several bases to object: hearsay is bootstrapped, there is implied human lie detector testimony, there are Mil. R. Evid. 701 fact wrapped and disguised as to expert testimony, and an implied ‘he wouldn’t be here if he wasn’t guilty.’ Here is another case from the 2d Circuit, thanks to Federal Evidence Review.
In vacating and remanding defendant’s drug conspiracy conviction, Second Circuit rejects the "government’s claim [a]s simply not credible" that an investigating officer’s testimony about a co-conspirator provided necessary background on the investigation; the officer’s testimony regarding his directions to the co-conspirator to phone his "supplier" and the actions taken by the co-conspirator in response was "inadmissible prejudicial hearsay testimony," that impermissibly communicated to the jury that the co-defendant had identified the defendant as his supplier, in United States v. Gomez, __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. August 4, 2010) (No. 08-3829-cr)
It is not often that a circuit takes the government to task on it’s evidentiary arguments. A recent case in the Second Circuit provides an example of a circuit’s reaction to what it considers an implausible argument on the applicability of FRE 801(c). In the case, the circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded for retrial because the government had introduced at trial hearsay through the testimony of one of the investigating officers in the case.
WHBL News Radio has this interesting piece.
Kurtis Armann was paroled from a federal prison in Ohio last year. U.S. Marshals arrested him in Brookfield in January – and they said they found driver’s licenses and an Army Reserve ID which Armann allegedly used to make fraudulent purchases.
When he was released, Armann had served 8 years for trying to kill a fellow soldier in Germany when both were in the Army. And in 1998, Armann shot and wounded a woman who didn’t pay his entire fee after she hired him to kill a man in a custody dispute.
Last December, Army Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs began joking with other Soldiers about how easy it would be to “toss a grenade” at Afghan civilians and kill them, according to statements made by fellow platoon members to military investigators. . . .
The Seattle Times has reviewed court documents — filed by a defense attorney with a U.S. Army magistrate — that summarize some of the evidence in the case. The Times also has interviewed attorneys for three of the defendants. The documents give new insight into how the murder plot may have evolved, but they give few clues about motives.
Huffington Post is reporting on the Toussaint case.
A senior chief who was censured by the Secretary of the Navy for hazing sailors under his command may retire with a full pension, Navy officials say.
Since it was announced last October, the terms of Michael Toussaint’s retirement have come under scrutiny that is unprecedented for an enlisted sailor. The senior chief petty officer, who from 2005 to 2006 led a Bahrain-based canine unit that was plagued by widespread documented abuse, denied much of his alleged misconduct in February during a retirement board hearing, a proceeding normally reserved for commissioned officers.
Military courts martial do not sacrifice fairness
Re: Military justice system was not fair to Semrau,
THE OTTAWA CITIZEN AUGUST 9, 2010
Aug. 4.
I wish to clarify some misconceptions about the roles and responsibilities of the key actors at a court martial and illustrate that courts martial are indeed rigorously fair.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
