Military service is a noble calling, but it can also lead to complex legal situations. When facing accusations or disciplinary actions, having experienced legal representation is crucial. Cave & Freeburg, LLP stands firmly behind service members across all branches (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard) with a…
This week we received the decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals of a client accused of homosexual sexual assaults. He had been convicted and sentenced to 14 years of confinement. We raised many issues during his appeal. The Army Court found a serious error by the military judge…
In the context of a court-martial, ineffective assistance of counsel refers to a claim by a military defendant that their defense counsel provided them with legal representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this deficient representation prejudiced the outcome of their case. Under the Uniform Code…
A “coram nobis” appeal is a legal procedure used to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence after all other legal avenues for relief have been exhausted. It is a form of post-conviction relief available in some U.S. states and federal and military courts. Coram nobis appeals are generally limited to…
United States v. Filmore. 1. If a victim testifies on sentencing–the rules of evidence apply the same as any other witness. Article 6b does not waive the rules of evidence when a victim testifies in sentencing. (Note, the victim gave both sworn and unsworn statements.) Failure to follow the rules (even without…
To paraphrase CMTG, Military (Federal) Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1) provides that A statement is not hearsay if: 1. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement. 2. The declarant testified under oath at a prior “hearing” or “or proceeding.” 3. The prior statement is inconsistent with…
For all of the criticisms of military justice and the UCMJ, you don’t have this at court-martial as tipped by Sentencing Law & Policy blog. Cargill, a federal public defender, was perturbed by a rarely discussed U.S. court rule that critics say conflicts with the presumption of judicial openness. In…
United States v. Stanley. The appellant raised eight errors through counsel and an additional six in accordance with United States v. Grostefon. One assignment of error warrants discussion, but no relief. Specifically, appellant alleges that the military judge erred by failing to properly instruct the panel regarding appellant’s right during…
Here’s a reminder about authenticating emails based on a posting from Prof. Colin Miller at EvidenceProfBlog. To paraphrase Prof. Miller: And, like its federal counterpart, [Mil. R. Evid.] 901(b)(4) provides that By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification…
Humor in military lawyering is good. Humor is good. Standby for a comment from DMLHS tonight. In thinking about why the case would be delayed to 3 November 2010 there were all kinds of ideas floating around, some ideas being of a conspiratorial nature. I had missed the piece noted…