Melanie D. Wilson, Finding a Happy and Ethical Medium Between a Prosecutor Who Believes the Defendant Didn't Do It and the Boss Who Says That He Did, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 65 (2008).

The trial counsel (prosecutor)[n.1] works for the SJA, the SJA works for and advises the convening authority, the convening authority decides what cases go to trial and how they might be desposed of.  I'd like to see the trial counsel try this recommendation.

As trained advocates with no personal stake in the outcome of a case, prosecutors are capable of presenting both views.  During preliminary hearings, bail hearings, trials, sentencing hearings, and numerous other proceedings, the court routinely asks, "What's the government's position?"  When a prosecutor disagrees with her supervisor about the government's position, what's wrong with telling the court that the "office's position is X but my own view is Y."  For a concrete example, consider the prosecutor featured in The New York Times article.

Here's a link

to attorney Bridget Wilson's article on the model state code of military justice

for the National Guard, that is available on NIMJ's website.

BRIDGET J. WILSON, MODEL STATE CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD NOT IN FEDERAL SERVICE, Justice for the Military's Minotaurs 6/6/2007.

In 2003, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to produce a Model State Code of Military Justice.  This Code is intended to be adopted by all of the states for use when dealing with misconduct by personnel in Title 32 status.  The idea is to try and have a "uniform" state code rather than 50+ differing codes (Guam and Puerto Rico provide National Guard units).

Jurisdiction over members of the National Guard generally rests with

either the federal government or the state to which their National

In addition to action under MEJA involving contractors in Iraq, a civilian spouse in Okinawa is headed for a U.S. District Court trial for the death of his stepson on Okinawa.

David Allen, Accused stepdad awaits transfer, Stars &Stripes, 6 March 2009.

The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000
The

Prof. Colin Miller has posted on how to and who may authenticate a persons voice, Follow My Voice: Seventh Circuit Finds That Voice Authentication Doesn't Need To Be Done By An Expert.

Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5), which states that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence of:

 Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.

The February Army Lawyer is on-line.  There are four articles of interest to military practitioner's.

2008 New Developments in Self-Incrimination
New Developments in Sixth Amendment Confrontation and Jurisdiction
Building a Better Mousetrap or Just a More Convoluted One?:A Look at Three Major Developments in Substantive Criminal Law
“Planning is Everything” Purpose Driven Trial Preparation
Contact Information