A top military official at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been relieved of duty and charged with knowingly falsifying his personnel records.
Command Sgt. Maj. Stoney Crump, the senior enlisted officer for the Medical Center Brigade, had the “intent to deceive” when he submitted a false official record incorrectly stating that he had attended several military educational courses, according to the Army charge sheet.
The Daily Weekly reports on a Fort Lewis Soldier convicted in civilian court of murder. The piece that caught my eye was this:
Since the start of the war in Iraq in 2003, there have been at least a dozen slayings on Western Washington soil alone involving active troops or veterans of Iraq. The body count includes seven wives, a girlfriend, and one child; six other children have lost one or both parents to death or imprisonment. Most gruesome was the double slaying by an attractive Fort Lewis soldier, Spc. Ivette Davila, 22, who shot, killed and then poured acid on the faces of Timothy Miller, 27, and Randi Miller, 25, a military couple stationed at the fort, then kidnapped their child.
Army Times reports:
This report from Savannah.now questions why expert payments within the 3ID claimancy take so long.
The military judge also questioned why experts for the defense continue to have difficulties obtaining payments for work done on Bozicevich’s behalf as attorneys prepare for a February 2011 capital court-martial trial.
The humor is that this is neither a new problem nor a problem limited to the 3ID, or the Army for that matter.
United States v. Foisy, __ M.J. __, No. NMCCA 201000026 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. July 20, 2010). (Thanks to an early posting of the decision by CAAFLog.)
Rodriguez and Gilbride deal with Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) rule of completeness. Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) is a longstanding rule of completeness pertaining to confessions introduced against an accused. See, United States v. Rodriguez, 56 M.J. 336, 341-42 (C.A.A.F. 2002), the rule applies to oral as well as written statements. United States v. Gilbride, 56 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2002). This is a different rule than Mil. R. Evid. 106.
In deciding the military judge erred in his application of Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2), NMCCA identified six non-exclusive factors to consider on the issue.
From on the road.
Air Force Times reports that:
Air Force officials are investigating the Wisconsin National Guard’s top commander.
On 16 July 2010, Orly Taitz posted the following item on her website.
NO ANSWER FROM JUSTICE THOMAS YET. PEOPLE CAN FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS- FRIEND OF THE COURT, IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION
Pity, because there is a 15 July 2010 entry on the Supreme Court journal regarding Taitz v. Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al:
Oooops, Military.com reports that:
The drug Ecstasy shows positive results in the majority of patients when used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a report coming out Monday in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
crimeandconsequences blog reports a link to:
Eugene Sullivan and Louis Freeh propose creation of a Federal District Court for Guantanamo Bay in this WaPo op-ed. Sullivan is a former CJ of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; Freeh is a former district judge and FBI Director. Their proposal would provide an Article III court and jury for trial of the terrorists without the security problems of the Administration’s initial proposal of holding the trials in New York.
CAAF has affirmed United States v. Diaz in a rather non-controversial unanimous decision. While not controversial in my mind, it is worth reading the discussion of Diaz’s attempt to plead guilty by exceptions and substitutions. I’d always thought there was quite a bit of leeway on pleading guilty by E&S, but the CAAF sees otherwise. In my view CAAF got it wrong, but the defense could have done better with the language it offered as a substitute for the charged language. Obviously the accused was trying to minimize the seriousness of the offense. But to me that doesn’t mean he was not provident to a 133 offense. There was nothing preventing the prosecution offering evidence of what was done under R.C.M. 1001. And, for that matter, nothing prohibited the military judge taking into account the prosecutions sentencing evidence and the accused’s providence enquiry as showing a lack of complete remorse or willingness to accept his responsibility.
ABC7 reports that:
A local airman is about to face a court martial, even though the Air Force knows it was a medical condition that caused what was called a dereliction of duty–falling asleep on the job.
Here is an new grant from CAAF.
No. 10-0494/AF. U.S. v. Caleb B. BEATY. CCA 37478. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE SENTENCE MUST BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE DETERMINED THE SENTENCE BASED ON THE INCORRECT MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
