CAAF’s daily journal for 10 June 2010 indicates that CAAF has allowed NIMJ to file a brief on behalf of appellant (I abstained from participation in producing said brief), and allowed NACDL to file an amicus pleading but denied NACDL leave to file an “oversized brief.”
No. 10-0337/AR. U.S. v. David ANTAR. CCA 20080836. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AND NOT REOPENING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY WITHOUT QUESTIONING BOTH APPELLANT AND HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL REGARDING APPELLANT’S BIPOLAR DISORDER, HIS EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS, AND POSSIBLE MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY DEFENSE.
The decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for reconsideration of the aforementioned issue in light of United States v. Harris, 61 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2005).[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
Here is a link to the press release.
The YouTube video isn’t operational yet.
Courtesy of TPMMuckraker here is the WRAMC statement:
Here is the daily journal entry for Navy TJAG certification of United States v. Hutchins.
No. 10-5003/MC. U.S., Appellant v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS, Appellee. CCA 200800393. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:
WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SEVERED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH CAPTAIN BASS?
The CGCCA has issued a per curiam opinion in United States v. Sapp., a SPCM tried at U.S.C.G. Training Center Yorktown.
Before this court, Appellant has assigned two errors: (1) This court should consider the unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay in determining the sentence that should be approved under Article 66(c); and (2) the promulgating order contains three errors. We grant sentence relief for post-trial delay and otherwise affirm. . . .
Notable delays in post-trial processing are found in the fifty-nine days apparently taken by the military judge to authenticate the record, the seventy-seven days taken after receipt of the authenticated record to produce the SJAR and send it to defense counsel, and the twenty-eight days between Convening Authority action and sending the record to Headquarters. The Memorandum forwarding the record gives no meaningful explanation for these delays, attributing them only to “administrative processing.”
Yesterday AFCCA issued an order in an Article 62, appeal, in United States v. Harris. There is a rather odd, perhaps bizarre, chronology. What next is the question?
Appellant charged.
Additional charges added.
Just the other day, alerted by SCOTUSBlog I posted Jones v. Williams as a case to watch at SCOTUS. The issue once again:
Issue: Whether the Tenth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations to a defendant who was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial, on the ground that the remedy the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals gave to the defendant was constitutionally inadequate, given that the Supreme Court has not clearly established what remedy, if any, is appropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel in such a case.
Now courtesy of the New York Times here is an article that defense counsel, trial counsel, and SJA’s may want to read. It’s a cautionary tale, or perhaps just entertaining.
Air Force Times reports:
A wing commander lost his job because he not only played favorites but hid unfavorable information from his bosses about a female lieutenant colonel, and recommended her for promotion, according to an Air Force investigation.
SCOTUSBlog has the 3 June 2010 petitions to watch at SCOTUS. Here is an interesting one.
Title: Jones v. Williams
Docket: 09-948
Issue: Whether the Tenth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations to a defendant who was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial, on the ground that the remedy the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals gave to the defendant was constitutionally inadequate, given that the Supreme Court has not clearly established what remedy, if any, is appropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel in such a case.
- Opinion below (10th Circuit, rehearing denied)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
The relevant “facts.”
Marine Corps Times reports that:
A lieutenant expelled from The Basic School in May for cheating on a land navigation exercise is fighting back, saying his punishment was too harsh.
Former 2nd Lt. Adam Ballard, a star fullback at the Naval Academy who now is pursuing a career in the National Football League, was administratively discharged from the Marine Corps on May 20, but says his punishment is unfair because cheating on land navigation at TBS is a wide-spread problem.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
