Like it or not, consistent or not consistent with long-held notions of justice, a military member accused of a sexual assault is presumed guilty.
Sure command and others will say you are going to get a fair hearing and trial, but that’s not reality.
Over 100 Law Professors, Others Call on DOJ to Stop Junk-Science ‘Victim-Centered’ Methods
When a party objects to testimony or documents they should state “I object” and cite the evidence rule or principle and nothing else. You may be tempted, but don’t make a speaking objection.
United States v. Gurfein, NMCCA 2019, is an example of why speaking objections are improper and can cause problems. I have had trial cases where I’ve had to cut trial counsel off from making a speaking objection in front of members. I have appellate cases where the counsel and military judge engaged in a discussion of the objection (sometimes lengthy and detailed) in front of the members–this is improper.
Defense counsel–shut trial counsel down when they make speaking objections in front of members. I know judges want to save time and not inconvenience members, but you have a client who may be adversely affected by what they hear.
Ordinary Causation: A Study in Experimental Statutory Interpretation
73 Pages Posted: 9 Apr 2019
The Navy is establishing a new uniform for all detainees and prisoners in a Navy Brig (currently Charleston, Miramar, Chesapeake consolidated brigs).
https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-culture/navy-uniforms-issued-in-brig
United States v. Vick, ACCA 2019.
Prosecutors and convening authorities require an accused to plead guilty to charges which the accused is not provident, but it’s a take it or leave it deal and the accused dutifully complies, only to have the whole process go awry.
Is Vick such a case of unreasonable requirements from the prosecution.
Appellant argues his trial defense team was ineffective. Appellant’s argument involves mistaken identity, fraternal betrayal, technological mystery, and a healthy dose of bad luck. The argument is ambitious and engaging, it is also wrong.
United States v. Carter, ACCA 2019.
As will be seen, this court-martial was a mess on several levels. Before discussing the facts surrounding appellant’s offenses, we are required to determine which specifications now remain before this court.
See United States v. Solomon, ACCA 2019.
A case to look out for.
United States v. Frost, No. 18-0362/AR
Issue: Whether the military judge erred in admitting hearsay statements as prior consistent statements under Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) where the defense theory posited the improper influence or motive preceded the allegedly consistent statements.
This is a banner on the NMPC web page.
NOTE: AMRDEC Safe has been reestablished to submit encrypted correspondence for a limited time awaiting
fielding of a permanent solution. For further information, contact MyNavy Career Center (MNCC).
Here is a link to a few cases of interest that were provided me last week at the 49th VACLE Criminal Law seminar.
Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit which, I believe, has a reputation as slightly conservative leaning.
United States v. Abdallah, ___ F.3d___ (4th Cir. 18 December 2018). Code 45 Alumni and friend Jim Wynn is one of the panel members. This case involves two issues: invocation of the right to silence and the all-important Brady issue.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
