court-martial Tag Archives — Page 14 of 60 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Up periscope 53

July 23, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Daily Weekly reports on a Fort Lewis Soldier convicted in civilian court of murder. The piece that caught my eye was this:

Since the start of the war in Iraq in 2003, there have been at least a dozen slayings on Western Washington soil alone involving active troops or veterans of Iraq. The body count includes seven wives, a girlfriend, and one child; six other children have lost one or both parents to death or imprisonment. Most gruesome was the double slaying by an attractive Fort Lewis soldier, Spc. Ivette Davila, 22, who shot, killed and then poured acid on the faces of Timothy Miller, 27, and Randi Miller, 25, a military couple stationed at the fort, then kidnapped their child.

Army Times reports:

Humor in uniform lawyering

July 21, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

This report from Savannah.now questions why expert payments within the 3ID claimancy take so long.

The military judge also questioned why experts for the defense continue to have difficulties obtaining payments for work done on Bozicevich’s behalf as attorneys prepare for a February 2011 capital court-martial trial.

The humor is that this is neither a new problem nor a problem limited to the 3ID, or the Army for that matter.

Do Rodriguez and Gilbride mean anything?

July 21, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Foisy, __ M.J. __, No. NMCCA 201000026 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. July 20, 2010). (Thanks to an early posting of the decision by CAAFLog.)

Rodriguez and Gilbride deal with Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) rule of completeness. Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) is a longstanding rule of completeness pertaining to confessions introduced against an accused. See, United States v. Rodriguez, 56 M.J. 336, 341-42 (C.A.A.F. 2002), the rule applies to oral as well as written statements. United States v. Gilbride, 56 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2002). This is a different rule than Mil. R. Evid. 106.

In deciding the military judge erred in his application of Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2), NMCCA identified six non-exclusive factors to consider on the issue.

Up periscope

July 20, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

From on the road.

Air Force Times reports that:

Air Force officials are investigating the Wisconsin National Guard’s top commander.

Ecstatic, a drug to help with PTSD

July 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Oooops, Military.com reports that:

The drug Ecstasy shows positive results in the majority of patients when used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a report coming out Monday in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.

Federal District Court of Gitmo

July 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

crimeandconsequences blog reports a link to:

Eugene Sullivan and Louis Freeh propose creation of a Federal District Court for Guantanamo Bay in this WaPo op-ed. Sullivan is a former CJ of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; Freeh is a former district judge and FBI Director. Their proposal would provide an Article III court and jury for trial of the terrorists without the security problems of the Administration’s initial proposal of holding the trials in New York.

Oooops, trial counsel, defense counsel do you agree

July 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is an new grant from CAAF.

No. 10-0494/AF. U.S. v. Caleb B. BEATY. CCA 37478. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE SENTENCE MUST BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE DETERMINED THE SENTENCE BASED ON THE INCORRECT MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT.

Excited utterances

July 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Federal Evidence Review has a good reminder that what may appear to be statements admissible as excited utterances may not in fact be so. Thus, defense as always your job is to ensure that the prosecution doesn’t get away with ritualistic or talismanic incantations of, “it’s an excited utterance (or some other exception)".”

United States v. Erickson, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. July 12, 2010).

Collateral consequences

July 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

In United States v. Eyster, decided by the 3rd Cir. on 14 July 2010, the appellant claimed he was improperly sentenced because the court considered a 1988 court-martial conviction for rape.

On appeal, Eyster argues that the District Court erred by increasing his criminal history from Category II to Category V, because his 1988 conviction under the UCMJ was not a qualifying prior "sex offense conviction" as defined by § 4B1.5.. . .

The Government concedes, and we agree, that Eyster’s 1988 conviction under the UCMJ was not a qualifying "sex offense conviction" for purposes of § 4B1.5. Therefore, Eyster’s advisory Guidelines range should have been calculated using criminal history Category II, not Category V. This was error[.]As explained, however, the applicable Guidelines range was the same—360 to 840 months—under either criminal history Category. Because this mistake did not result in the calculation of an incorrect Guidelines range, we conclude that it did not affect Eyster’s substantial rights.

Not sure category

July 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Not sure where to place this but:

No. 10A56

Title: