Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
Are you at a base overseas?
Do you have foreign national witnesses or foreign language documents as evidence in your case?
United States v. Aifang Ye, No. 12-10576 (9th Cir. 2015)
Have Briefcase (and
Internet), Will TravelFor a Free Consultation
Interesting FL case on SOR
Jershun v. State (FL).
DOD IG semiannual report
TheDOD IG Semiannual Report to the Congress has been issued for the reporting period of October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015 is on line. The report complies with a requirement of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The report is a summary.
- DoD IG issued 103 reports, identifying $101.1 million in questioned costs and $261.6 million in funds put to better use.
- $41.1 million in financial savings based on management-completed corrective actions to reports issued during this and previous reporting periods.
Today is leg day
6 June is Leg Day for Navy Appellate Defense.
Happy leg day all.
CAAF on jurisdictio
United States v. Nettles decided by CAAF today.
We granted review to determine whether the Air Force had personal jurisdiction over Appellant at the time of his courtmartial. We hold that it did not, and that therefore the judgment of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) is vacated, the findings and sentence are set aside, and the case is dismissed.
Worth the read
Michael G. Heyman, Professor Emeritus, The John Marshall Law School (Chicago) .
Due Process Limits on Accomplice Liability
In a prior piece in this journal, I noted some disturbing developments in the law of
CAAF’s decision in Woods does not support MJIA
The Real Cost Of Having Commanders In Charge Of Military Justice
This article has appeared in Task & Purpose as a result of United States v. Woods, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on 18 June 2015.
Incredibly, a senior naval officer was appointed to be the president of a court-martial panel when in a questionnaire prepared when first told she’d be a court-martial member in the future, the member answered thus about the presumption of innocence.
An interesting perspective
Protect Our Defenders (POD) has this to say about the recent vote on Sen. Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act.
Last week, 50 U.S. Senators stood with survivors and voted for Senator Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA).
For two years in a row, a majority of the Senate has told the Pentagon to fix the arbitrary and biased military justice system. Unfortunately, this common-sense legislation was blocked with a threat of a filibuster, as it was last year, requiring 60 votes to pass instead of a simple majority.
Opening the door-or keeping it closed
As a defense counsel, I’m always looking for ways in which the prosecutor has opened the door to relevant evidence, but which for some reasons has been excluded or can’t be offered. MRE 412 comes to mind, as happened to me at trial in United States v. Savala, 70 M.J. 70 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
But, BUT, as a defense counsel, I’m equally conscious of how I can do something to open the door. I might have successfully litigated a motion in limine to exclude evidence. But now I have the key and have to be careful I don’t give it to the prosecution to use.
There are other ways the defense can open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence. United States v. Martin just decided by NMCCA is a case in point. Although the appellate court ultimately found the proescutions questions plainly wrong, the damage was done and they court found no prejudice.
Manual for Courts-Martial-new
Here is a link to the MCM changes effective 17 June 2015.