Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogNavy Times reports:
A cruiser skipper who was fired for cruelty and mistreatment of her crew will go before a Navy board of inquiry Tuesday that will recommend whether she can continue her Navy service.
A Behanna update by Army Times:
Up periscope
Articles Tagged with court-martial
Jackie Robinson–not guilty
Takepart notes:
Of course, Robinson didn’t begin his fight for equal rights overnight. While enlisted, Robinson was court-martialed for refusing to sit at the back of the bus — eleven years before Rosa Parks. Faced with multiple offenses, including public drunkenness (even though Robinson did not drink), the UCLA standout was acquitted of all charges by an all-white jury.
American Heritage Magazine has this introduction to the charges (and a fairly decent history of the case):
New CCA opinions
Navy.
1. United States v. Curry. This is a BAH case.
The Government proceeded on a theory of a fraudulent marriage as a basis to commit larceny by trick.
The court held oral argument in this case and specified two additional issues to the parties.2 Additional pleadings were later filed. After carefully considering the record of trial and the pleadings of the parties, we decide this case based solely on the assigned error and conclude that the evidence was factually insufficient to sustain the finding of guilt as to the charge of larceny, either on the proffered theory of larceny by trick or under a possible theory of wrongful withholding.
Sound familiar?
KPLU News reports.
Key pieces of evidence were lost or never collected in the case of five Washington-based soldiers charged with murdering Afghan civilians. That emerged Tuesday in an evidentiary hearing against the alleged ringleader – Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs.
MAJ Hasan update
Courtesy of Army Times, here is a link to, “Fort Hood Army Internal Review Team: Final Report.”
AFCCA on unconditional waiver of motions
United States v. Brown is a good reminder of waiver of motions in pretrial agreements.
The typical waiver is that the accused will “waive all waivable motions.” This seems something of an oxymoron. The provision is consistent with the idea that all nonjurisdictional motions are waived on a guilty plea unless there is a conditional waiver. The court cites United States v. Bradley, 68 M.J. 279 (C.A.A.F. 2010)
This is an area potentially ripe for IAC in pretrial negotiations and advice. In this case,
More delays in Wuterich?
Misc. No. 11-8009/MC. Frank D. WUTERICH, Appellant v. David L. Jones, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Marine Corps, in his capacity as Military Judge, and United States, Appellees. CCA 200800183. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.
New Army Lawyer
The September Army Lawyer is online.
There are five articles of interest to MJ practitioners.
Army Review Boards and Military Personnel Law Practice and Procedure, this is by Jan Serene, he is a master of these issues so civilian practitioners can gain some good insight here.
False confessions in the spotlight
Thanks to Sentencing Law & Policy:
PBS Frontline has been giving lots of attention to criminal justice systems this fall. . . . This week Frontline will broadcast a new documentary "The Confessions," which examines the case of the "Norfolk Four" involving a quartet of Navy men who were wrongfully convicted after being coerced into giving false confessions.
A preview is at this link.
A quick reminder for “documents” cases
My good friend Bill Cassara and I have done a lot of BAH/TCS fraud cases at court-martial under the UCMJ over the years. Typically the case involves a lot of documents from DFAS. The prosecution then calls a witness from DFAS to lay a foundation for the documents and then has the witness testify as to what the documents mean in terms of monies claimed and paid compared to the legal entitlements. Because these documents are of many pages the witness typically prepares a chart which summarizes the documents and the bottom lines. There is nothing wrong with that so long as the underlying documents are admissible (usually as business records and documents prepared and submitted by the accused), the chart is an accurate representation of the documents, and the witness who prepared the chart or summary is available for cross-examination.
The case of United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 8, 2008) (Nos. 06-3088, 06-3089, 07-3016), noted by federalevidence.com, reminds us of this point.
Cross-examination might expose errors or inconsistencies in the chart. At which point the parties can refer to the original documents if necessary. Assuming the errors or inconsistencies are identified and cross-examined on the testimony is then judged as to its weight not admissibility.