Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Prosecution misconduct

June 2, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

We often hear of prosecution misconduct going unchallenged or undisciplined. Two events this week are noteworthy though in efforts to hold prosecutors accountable.

Armstrong v. Daily, et. al., is a case out of the Seventh. The M-W Journal Sentinal extracts this:

He brought a civil rights suit against the prosecutor on his case, John Norsetter, and two crime lab workers, Karen Daily and Dan Campbell. All three sought to have Armstrong’s suit dismissed on immunity grounds, but the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s refusal to grant that request:

Did your lawyer tell you about clemency and parole?

May 26, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Georgia Supreme Court extends Padilla

In Alexander v. State, decided on May 11, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed that a failure to advise on parole issues from a guilty plea was ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington.

Military lawyers know there are two specific areas they must ensure adequate advice about to clients: the possible impact of sex offender registration and possible adverse citizenship and immigration decisions. Now–at least in Georgia–you can add one more: impacts on clemency and parole.

Another one bites the dust`

May 20, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Listen up: “Every occasion of a proved false allegation has an insidious effect on public confidence, sometimes allowing doubts to creep into when one shouldn’t exist.” Said the judge on sentencing.

That’s right, the failure to hold people accountable for false accusations harms true victims.

Col Christensen of POD says this doesn’t happen and that people don’t make false allegations for these reasons. Sorry mate, read this.

How extensive is the Brady obligation

May 6, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Ask the prosecutor in this case.

In re Kline.

Military prosecutors are bound by Service rules of professional responsibility. Those rules are based on the ABA Model Rules.

False reports and false claims

May 3, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

1 May 2015 saw the release of a number of reports and memorandums regarding military sexual assault. Some initial takeaways (which in my view certain people are either deliberately ignoring or misreporting).

No POD, the conviction rate is not 5%– the conviction rate is 67% for penetrative offenses, and 84% for non-penetrative (conctact) offenses.

If POD is claiming only a 5% conviction rate, then they are presuming guilt in each allegation made, regardless of the truth of the claim and the amount of evidence available.

Worth the read

May 3, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

E. Samuel, An Historical Account of the British Army: And of the Law Military, as Declared by the Ancient and Modern Statutes, and Articles of War for Its Government with a Free Commentary on the Mutiny Act, and the Rules and Articles of War; Illustrated by Various Decisions of Courts Martial, (1816).

Worth the read

May 1, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

There are two items from Canada that are worth the read.

Marie Deschamps, C.C. Ad.E., External Review Authority, External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, March 27, 2015.

Under the standard articulated by Criminal Code and the Supreme Court of Canada, genuine consent may be communicated by word or conduct. However, where either party indicates by any means—verbal or not—that he or she is uncomfortable or reluctant to continue with the sexual activity, an obligation crystallizes on the other party to specifically obtain consent before proceeding any further. While the Court did not explicitly require that this consent be verbal, as a practical matter where there is doubt as to whether or not a party has consented to sexual activity, the only clear way to dispel such doubt will be to verbally seek consent.

A long trail

April 26, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

No. 15-0330/AR. U.S. v. Kenneth A.R. Pinkela. CCA 20120649. 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:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 128 AND 134, UCMJ, BY ENGAGING IN UNPROTECTED SEX WHILE HIV-POSITIVE.

The decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for reconsideration in light of United States v.Gutierrez, 74 M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 2015).

This is important to today as well

April 19, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Washington Post has a report today:

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

A collateral effect of the “new” Article 32 PH

April 11, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Under the “old” Article 32, the right to call and examine witnesses and to obtain production (discovery) of evidence was pretty robust.

All Services except the Air Force and Coast Guard routinely recorded the audio of the hearing. That audio could then be transcribed into a verbatim transcript. The benefit to the government was that in the event a witness became unavailable at trial, there existed a “deposition,” or at least something akin to a deposition which could be used in evidence at trial in the extreme case.

The Article 32 testimony as substitute for the actual appearance of the witness is guided by United States v. Norris, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 574, 37 C.M.R. 194 (to be admissible, must be verbatim); United States v. Burrow, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 94, 36 C.M.R. 250; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)(testimony might be received only if “taken at a full-fledged hearing at which petitioner had been represented by counsel who had been given a complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine.” Id., at page 407.