Here is an interesting CAAF grant in a Coast Guard case.

No. 08-0719/CG.  U.S. v. Webster M. SMITH.  CCA 1275.  Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE VIOLATED APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSERS BY LIMITING HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF [SR], THE GOVERNMENT'S ONLY WITNESS, ON THREE OF THE FIVE CHARGES.

Kevin Maurer, Wounded soldier's care probed, FayObserver.com, 11 March 2009.

If this report is believed, injured and wounded soldiers in medical holding company's are disciplined at a higher rate than line company's.

Apparently, it is not an excuse for a failure to go that your prescribed medication for you injury or illness causes you to be late for formation.  Seems to me there's at least the possibility of a defense based on impossibility or something similar.

Two new CAAF cases have been put up on the website.

United States v. Stephens, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. Mar. 12, 2009).  The prosecution called the victims father to talk about the effect the trial had on her.

Appellant, citing United States v. Mobley, 31 M.J. 273 (C.M.A. 1990), United States v. Carr, 25 M.J. 637 (A.C.M.R. 1987), and Burns v. Gammon, 260 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2001), argues that the father’s testimony was an impermissible comment on Appellant’s right to plead not guilty, confront the witnesses against him, and put the Government to its proof, and hence constitutional error.

Drew Brooks, Kreutzer enters guilty plea, no longer faces death penalty, FayObserver.com, 11 March 2009.  Some observations (on the article, and assuming the article is correct).  There is no word in the article about how the family is taking this and what role they did or did not play in the negotiations.  As we've discussed elsewhere, the family must be consulted under the Victim Witness Assistance Program rules, although the Army isn't bound to follow the victim's wishes.

1.  He was sentenced to "life," which is mandatory.  The UCMJ amendment authorizing Life Without Possibility of Parole was passed after Kreutzer was sentenced first time around.  See Article 56a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 856a.  Under current regulations it will be many years before he becomes eligible for parole.  And as a practical matter he's unlikely to see parole.

2.  "prosecutors will try to persuade Parrish to raise the aggravated assault charges to attempted premeditated murder charges."  Anyone have any idea what this means?  Is the prosecution trying to make a major variance on the charge sheet post-referral, post-something?

Every so often do you get a file and you can't open it?  Check its file extension.  The file extension comes at the end of the name of the file and is [dot].bz, and is a key to the name of the software program that created the file.

.bz

If you go to OpenWith.org you will find a host of free programs that may point you to a "reader" program that allows you to open the particular file you are having trouble with.

Every now and again a client wants to object to giving a DNA sample once at the Brig.  Objections based on religion, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, won't work.

Pursuant to congressional authorization, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation ("FBI") established the Combined DNA Index System

This issue of journalists and privilege — and considerations of a Shield Law –  is not new to military practice.

A proposed privilege is circulating around Congress and other high offices.

Here is a piece by Prof. Colin Miller of Evidence Prof Blog, writing this time for the Yale Law Journal's Pocket Part — A Public Privilege.

Contact Information