A couple of new opinions from NMCCA address issues related to CP prosecutions.
United States v. Jones, III, has this issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HE PLED GUILTY AND WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF THAT DENIAL, APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS PROVIDENT.
Here’s a case discussing access to mental health records of a primary prosecution witness.
This was a due process and confrontation case. Here, as is not an infrequent issue, the prosecution succeeded in having damaging information about their witness excluded. The prosecution then went on to give an “incomplete and inaccurate picture” of their witness. The prosecution did this knowing full well that they were presenting a misleading picture. (Why that’s not prosecutorial misconduct I have no idea. [N.1])
The majority held that the Confrontation Clause was violated by the restrictions on cross-examination about the informant’s mental health and use of prescription medication. The jury was deprived of evidence concerning his ability to perceive and recall what transpired and the informant’s credibility. On this point, the majority noted:
A new Air Force Law Review is online, as well as a new The Reporter.
MILITARY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT, by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Dukes, Jr., USAFR & Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Rees, Jr., USAFR.
AN OPEN LETTER TO DEFENSE COUNSEL: Protecting Yourself Against IAC Claims, by Captain Ryan N. Hoback.
Jansen. A sentence comparison case among co-accused’s. The case is of note to trial practitioners and SJA’s for it’s “discussion” of what is or isn’t a “closely related” case, and whether sentence disparity should be addressed with the CA post-trial.
Principi. A CP case where the prosecution charged for contingencies of proof, the contingency wasn’t resolved at trial, but the sentence was a decent one so no real prejudice.
Redeaux. I think this case should be looked at as a pleadings specificity and notice case, and IAC of TC/SJA/Art. 32 IO. Poor pleading practice lead to the accused getting a benefit, that he probably wasn’t entitled to. The MJ raised issues with the pleadings. The TC folded and apparently didn’t make an argument that the pleadings, while inartful, were sufficient. Because the TC folded the accused got the benefit of renegotiating his PTA for a lower sentence cap.
Here is the footnote that should be of concern to all defense counsel, from United States v. Regaladozambrano, just decided.
While the Court has declined to brand Capt [O’s] post-trial legal representation of the appellant as deficient, that restraint is exercised only due to the lack of any evidence of prejudice in the record before us.
What’s the court’s concern?
Five of the new cases are post-trial delay issues. More on the others later.
The October 2009 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin is online.
This issue has a very nice list, summary, and LE interpretation of each criminal law related Supreme Court decision from last term.
A Reserve Marine master sergeant at Camp Pendleton was sentenced to a reduction in rank and 60 days confinement after a court martial found him guilty of removing classified documents from files and possessing an unauthorized machine gun.
The members acquitted Master Sgt. Reinaldo Pagan of other specifications involving the alleged mishandling of intelligence files about possible terrorist activities in Southern California.
Pagan, a police officer in the Northern California city of Hayward, is the latest Marine to stand trial in a case involving the alleged leaking of files to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
Here, if you are not yet bored by the whole subject is the “Attorney’s Notice of Appeal of Sanctions and Related Orders,” for her $20K ding.
She includes as argument
[C]ounsel appeals all aspects of this Court’s Order in Document #28, wherein the Court proved its pervasively extreme and outrageous (extrajudicial) prejudice and bias against the undersigned counsel[.]
Stars & Stripes reports that:
After avoiding any punishment for more than two years, Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint, who led the division from 2004 to 2006, was recently removed from his leadership post within Naval Special Warfare Group 2 and will be forced into retirement in January. In addition, Navy officials will decide whether Toussaint should be stripped of his rank and retirement pay, Navy spokeswoman Cmdr. Elissa Smith said.
Naval investigators have confirmed 93 instances of hazing and sex crimes inside the Bahrain-based canine unit during Toussaint’s tenure as commander, including numerous instances of Toussaint abusing and ridiculing sailors.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
