Because of the current politics surrounding sexual assaults in the military, some are wondering what they can do in advance to avoid a later false claim of sexual assault.  This has lead to a suggestion that the interactions should be video recorded, the idea being that the recording will later be evidence to defend against a false report.

Well, that doesn’t take care of the issue about the potential crime involved.  If the recording is done with knowledge and consent, that probably is defensible.  But what if it isn’t.  Many states now have statutes prohibiting unknowing or nonconsensual recordings.  As does the federal government in 18 U.S.C. 2251(a).  Now what.

See United States v. Palomino-Coronado, a decision of the Fourth.

United States v. Dreyer.  A decision from the Ninth.

On issues arising from the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), the en banc court affirmed the district court’s denial of a suppression motion, and remanded to the three-judge panel for consideration of remaining issues, in a case in which the defendant was convicted of one count of distributing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography.

A special agent of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) conducted an investigation into computers in Washington state sharing child pornography by utilizing a software query that encompassed the entire state but did not isolate or look for military service members. The investigation revealed that the defendant, a civilian, had shared child pornography files, and the NCIS passed that information along to the local police department.

Today, 5 November 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted our petition in United States v. Pinkela, reversed the findings for aggravated assault and reckless endangerment, and affirmed a lesser included offense of assault and battery.

United States v. Pinkela, ACCA — I.

U.S.C.A.A.F. — I.  This was a summary disposition with a remand to consider the case in light of United States v. Guitierrez.

The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice has proposed new rules for courts-martial, including rules of evidence.  The proposal is open for public comment.


There is much to think about, some good, some possibly bad, and as I note below, some odd.

(d) A new R.C.M. 305(i)(2)(A)(v) is inserted and reads as follows:

Here are two items of potential interest to military justice practitioners from Volume 68 VANDERBILT L. REV.

Todd Haugh, Overcriminalization’s New Harm Paradigm, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 1191 (2015).

Joshua D. Foote, Hung Up on Words: A Conduct-Based Solution to the Problem of Conspiracy in Military Commissions, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 1367 (2015).

Contact Information