Close

Articles Posted in Appeals

Updated:

Collatoral Review, including habeas

Summary and Analysis of the Opinion: Deference Owed to the Military Justice System and the Limits of Collateral Review by Federal District Courts The review is based on Csady v. Ashworth, but it is equally applicable when federal courts examine habeas corpus petitions from military prisoners under 28 U.S.C. 2241.…

Updated:

Jury biases at court-martial–voir dire

In United States v. Urieta, The appellant, a specialist in the U.S. Army, was charged with multiple sexual assault offenses and a false official statement. During voir dire at his court-martial, he challenged the selection of Sergeant First Class (SFC) Bravo as a panel member, arguing actual and implied bias…

Updated:

Government “appeals”

When the government does not like the decision of a Court of Criminal Appeals–because it favors the Appellant, the Government has an automatic “appeal.” It’s called certifying the issue. This is an example of unfairness and discrimination in the appellate process which military defense lawyers are well aware of. So,…

Updated:

Defining meaning from words in a statute

Generally When deciding what a word or term in a statute means, the rule of statutory interpretation is to give the word or term its plain and ordinary meaning. This is known as the plain meaning rule. If the word or term is clear and unambiguous, then the court will…

Updated:

Challenge MRE 311!

YOUR MILITARY DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD CHALLENGE THE APPLICATION OF THE MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 311. THE RULE VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. WE ARE CHALLENGING THAT AT THE U. S. SUPREME COURT NOW. In many courts-martial, your military defense counsel will have to deal with evidence obtained from digital devices, like…

Updated:

Unanimous verdicts

Military lawyers know that since the Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana, the U. S. military is the only federal jurisdiction that does not require unanimous findings of guilt. Currently, a military jury (called a Panel of Members) must have eight members in a general court-martial (12 if it’s a…

Updated:

Another bad day at CAAF for the Fourth Amendment.

Two recent decisions of  CAAF condone unlawful or bad practices when OSI, CID, NCIS, and CGIS search cellphones; United States v. Shields and United States v. Lattin. As a result, the MCIOs are unlikely to change their unlawful or bad practices. More than sloppy police work gets two passes because…

Contact Us
Start Chat