The command master chief of the Japan-based destroyer Stethem has been fired after being arrested in connection with a drunken-driving incident, according to a 7th Fleet spokesman.
The relief of Command Master Chief (SW/AW) Kelvin Coleman on Jan. 22 marks the second firing of a command’s top enlisted sailor so far this year. Both firings were related to drunken driving.
You’ll recollect the naming of the Stetham. Here is a Navy.mil piece from last August.
USS Stethem (DDG 63) honored the ship’s namesake with a posthumous frocking ceremony Aug. 24.
Steelworker (SW/DV) 2nd Class Robert Dean Stethem was frocked to the honorary rank of master chief petty officer, 25 years after he was killed during the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in June 1985.
Stethem was singled out by Lebanese hijackers because of his military status and was badly beaten and ultimately murdered after their demands were not met. Throughout his ordeal Stethem did not yield; instead, he acted with fortitude and courage and helped his fellow passengers endure by his example.
“The idea is simple,” said Cmdr. Hank Adams, USS Stethem commanding officer. “If ‘Robbie’ had lived and stayed in the Navy, surely 25 years later, he would have risen through the ranks to become a master chief.”
The Olympian reports today that United States v. Gibbs is referred non-capital.
CAAF’s Journal for 4 January has this entry: No. 11-0231/AR. U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER, Jr. CCA 19961044. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, to January 24, 2011.
CAAF has granted review of important issues in child pornography cases.
IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF CRIMINAL LAW THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF AN OFFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN A PROSECUTION UNDER CLAUSE 2 OF ARTICLE 134, THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT THE CHARGED CONDUCT WAS OF A NATURE TO BRING DISCREDIT UPON THE ARMED FORCES. DID THE LOWER COURT’S HOLDING THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY POSSESSION BY A UNIFORMED MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES IS PER SE SERVICE DISCREDITING VIOLATE THIS FUNDAMENTAL TENET?
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY POSSESSION UNDER CLAUSE 2 OF ARTICLE 134 WHERE APPELLANT’S CONDUCT TOOK PLACE IN PRIVATE, WAS NOT DISCOVERED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR MILITARY, AND WAS INVESTIGATED BY TWO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EMPLOYEES WHO SPECIALIZE IN INVESTIGATING CRIMES COMMITTED BY SERVICE MEMBERS.
Two items of interest in the October Army Lawyer:
Imagine a trial counsel reporting to a new installation and being handed a case file. The accused was caught, on camera, using a fellow Soldier’s ATM card to steal $300. Based on recent contested cases with similar facts, the trial counsel estimates that the accused can expect a sentence of four to five months confinement and a punitive discharge. The case is ripe for a guilty plea, and the defense counsel has been calling, trying to probe what kind of deal he can strike. After consulting with his boss, the trial counsel thinks he will try to strike a deal for three to five months.
Er, Stefan, that’s not a deal. If you are offering what the accused is likely to get, then what’s the incentive to have a deal: why not plead not guilty, or plead naked and go to court with a cashier’s check for $300.00 made out to the victim. Now, if you were offering 30 or 45 days for giving up all that hassle, that’s a deal.
Applause for recommending creative deals! If you have a victim out quite a bit of cash or a lot of stolen property what’s better:
DD, two years confinement, and TF, or
BCD, six months, and $5,000.00 (with a kicker clause) restitution direct to the victim?