So which CID agents are violating Article 92, UCMJ? And if they are lawyers on the government side, which lawyers are violating Article 92, UCMJ, and ethics rules for lawyers in the Army regarding pretrial publicity?
officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the case publicly.
Army Times.
(Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy) we have Sanford v. United States, No. 08-5402 (D.C. Cir. 13 November 2009), in which the court held that a SPCM with less than six members is not unconstitutional. The court notes that:
This court has recognized that the standard of review in non-custodial collateral attacks on court-martial proceedings is “tangled.” United States ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 448 F.3d 403,
406 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“New II”).
Sanford had been arguing that the government had the burden to demonstrate reasons why there should not have been at least six members on his court-martial panel, in accordance with Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978). The district court dismissed Sanford’s case, and he appealed. The circuit court ultimately concluded that the burden was on Sanford to show reasons why there was a constitutional violation and that because he’d not done so, dismissal was proper. Thus, a special court-martial can still have less than six members. It is uncertain if Sandford will appeal.
I have mentioned several times that I always look for MySpace, Facebook, and other social network accounts held by witnesses at a court-martial trial I have. In a number of instances I have found information, photographs, or leads to other information that has been useful for cross-examination at the court-martial. Google and other social network sites can be a useful investigative tool for military lawyers. See CNN Justice: Facebook status update provides alibi; The Local, His Facebook Status Now? ‘Charges Dropped;” Professor Colin Miller has more on his Blog.
Here is a case from New York City in which the accused’s Facebook activity proved his alibi. This case also, again, points out the fallacy of identifications. The accused was a suspect in a robbery and was picked out of a line-up.
Rodney Branford claimed alibi. He claimed and had his family testify that he was elsewhere on his father’s computer updating his Facebook account at the time of the robbery. The prosecutors didn’t think that was sufficient proof of alibi and were still going toward trial. Heck who believes and accused and his family. At least the prosecutor was willing to work with the defense and subpoened records from Facebook. The records showed that indeed he was updating his Facebook account from his father’s computer (IP address).
Online Newshour reports:
And it doesn’t have to be all 12 members voting him guilty. Two-thirds to convict is enough. And it does have to be unanimous to give him the death penalty.
In a death penalty case the members have to be unanimous on a finding of guilty. The unanimity requirement different than for any other special and general court-martial.
This reminds me of A Few Good Men. Remember, in the Navy court-room the Army JAG symbol
is on the podium.
Well here they have a picture of courtroom A at Marine Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan. We know the picture’s about a year old because the major pictured is now the head defense counsel in that same LSSS.
I think it unlikely the Army will move Hasan to Camp Foster for court-martial.
There is a great deal of pontificating on both sides of the aisle about Major Hasan, Fort Hood, and intelligence failures. Here is a rational discussion and perspective.
In last week’s global security and intelligence report, we discussed the recent call by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West. We also noted how it is relatively simple to conduct such attacks against soft targets using improvised explosive devices, guns or even knives and clubs.
The next day, a lone gunman, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire on a group of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.
ACCA has decided United States v. Kloch.
The accused wanted to tell the military judge in his unsworn that several of his co-accused’s had received 15 days confinement at summary court-martial, etc. The MJ would not allow the statement. ACCA found error, but that it was non-prejudicial.
An official news release from Fort Hood PAO states that:
The charges filed against Hasan include 13 specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, (emphasis added).
hat-tip to CAAFLog. The media has been speculating all afternoon based on a CID news conference. I would not imagine CID to be a spokesperson for the Article 32, UCMJ, appointing authority, and if it’s CID, I’d want to see it in writing. One suspects CID is wanting a little face time with the public. CID investigates, they don’t decide what charges will be preferred.
Here’s the question, I think.
Military.com, as with many other media outlets are reporting:
Nidal Malik Hasan’s overly zealous religious views and strange behavior worried the doctors overseeing his medical training, but they saw no evidence that he was violent or a threat.
Thanks to SCOTUSBlog here is a link to a new Supreme Court research tool.
The Supreme Court Database is the definitive source for researchers, students, journalists, and citizens interested in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Database contains over two hundred pieces of information about each case decided by the Court between the 1953 and 2008 terms. Examples include the identity of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed, the parties to the suit, the legal provisions considered in the case, and the votes of the Justices.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
