The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has raised an interesting question and important reminder in United States v. Keen, decided 20 October 2016. The court itself specified the following issue.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ACTED AS COUNSEL OR LEGAL OFFICER AS TO ANY OFFENSE CHARGED OR IN APPELLANT’S CASE GENERALLY OR FORWARDED CHARGES IN APPELLANT’S CASE WITH A PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION AS TO DISPOSITION WHEN HE WAS CHIEF OF MILITARY JUSTICE AT III CORPS?
The facts supporting this issue were:
When I read that, I thought of “The Invisible War.”
Friend and forensic psychologist Reneau Kennedy sent an interesting piece across the transom today. She forwarded a piece by Karen Franklin:
“In the Dark” shines brilliant light on bungled Jacob Wetterling case
Good friend Gene Fidell has drawn attention to a news release about the new report. In particular he notes that 23% of those surveyed last year would not recommend making a report. The 2015 survey report is Enclosure 3.
Interestingly, last year nearly a number of respondents were dissatisfied with the various services available to a complaining witness.
Specifically, 80% of respondents were satisfied with overall services provided by the SVC/VLC during the military justice process, 74% of respondents were satisfied with the services provided by the UVA/VA, and 68% of respondents were satisfied with the services provided by the SARC. Across these individuals, less than 20% were actively dissatisfied with the services provided by the UVA/VA (19% dissatisfied) or SARC (17% dissatisfied). Few respondents were dissatisfied with the SVC/VLC program, which was the highest rated resource across all respondents (only 7% actively dissatisfied).
SCOTUSBlog has an interesting post about the court’s relist practice. Some of us discussed the relist option when the court was considering the petition in United States v. Sullivan, 74 M.J. 448 (C.A.A.F. 2015) cert. denied.
When last we wrote about the statistics of relists a little over a year ago, it was to report on what was then a new trend: the court’s practice of routinely relisting petitions that are under serious consideration for review at second or subsequent conferences prior to entering orders granting or denying certiorari. The practice is by now an accepted feature of the certiorari process, and at least one relist is generally viewed as a necessary step on the way to a grant of further review. Here, we offer an update on the statistics of relists. Focusing on October Term 2015, we highlight some emerging trends in what appears to be an evolving practice.
Regrettably, on 3 October 2016 the court declined to take Captain Sullivan’s petition.
We have complications in CONUS trials with doctor-patient privileges.
Overseas, host nation laws can make an already complex issue more difficult to navigate.
COL (former military judge) Masterson discusses the administrative and legal difficulties under the NATO SOFA.
Date & Time: Friday, October 21, 2016 from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
CLE Credit: Yes
https://www.thefire.org/ocr-finds-unfair-disciplinary-process-for-accused-student-violates-title-ix/
Sara Koenig, Was Anyone Killed Looking for Bowe Bergdahl? Some Hard Evidence at Long Last, 6 October 2016.
After nearly a year of waiting, [Serial has] finally received the Army’s internal investigations into the 2009 deaths of six soldiers from Bowe Bergdahl’s unit: MW, CB, KC, MM, DA and MM.
None of these investigations report that any of these men was on a mission to look for Bergdahl. Neither Bergdahl’s name, nor the term DUSTWUN (shorthand for a missing soldier), appears in any of the documents.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has decided United States v. Hennis, the military’s latest death penalty appeal.
The opinion is 106 pages long, so it will take a little time read. But what struck me immediately were the statistics.
The case was heard en banc. However, of 12 judges assigned to court and initially eligible to participate, all but four were disqualified for one reason or another.
In United States v. Lopez, Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, but there is no opinion on the Army court website and I don’t see it in Lexis.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has specified an issue for review in this case as follows:
No. 16-0487/AR. U.S. v. Mario I. Lopez. CCA 20140943 [2016 CAAF LEXIS 773]. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue specified by the Court:
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
