Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In United States v. Deremer, 2025 CCA LEXIS 46, 2025 WL 427756 (N-M.Ct. Crim. App. 20 Feb. 2025), NMCCA decided that when an alleged victim has an SVC, the MCIO must notify the SVC of any interviews, especially those with intent to interrogate the “victim” about a false allegation.

The McOmber rule was based on the CMA’s interpretation of the right to counsel at the time. Following two Supreme Court decisions the Military Rules of Evidence were amended, and in United States v. Finch, McOmber was overruled because its constitutional basis was no longer good law and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [CAAF] established that Mil. R. Evid. 305 governed Section 1044e and 10 U.S.C. § 1565b along with the accompanying DoDI and, in this case, the LSAM are congressional, departmental and service efforts to afford specific (and in some cases different or greater) rights to those in, or related to, the military who report that they are victims sexual assault.

United States v. Deremer, No. 202300205, 2025 CCA LEXIS 46, at *11-12 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 7, 2025).

A convicted servicemember has the statutory and constitutional right to speedy review of their court-martial conviction. Unfortunately, the appellate cases show consistent problems in getting a record of the trial from the field to the court of criminal appeals. Here is a recent example.

In United States v. Lathrop, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals granted the Appellant 30 days confinement credit for such delay.

ACCA gives one month of sentence relief for a 211-day delay. The concurring judge would have also given the credit for a due process violation and would have granted 98 days of sentence relief versus the one-month granted. 

Sexual harassment accusations in the military can have severe consequences, potentially leading to criminal charges and court-martial proceedings. As of January 26, 2022, sexual harassment became a specified offense under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This change has significant implications for those accused and their defense strategies.

Understanding the Charges

To secure a conviction for sexual harassment under Article 134, prosecutors must prove several elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

According to multiple news reports, the president-elect’s transition team is “compiling a list of senior current and former U.S. military officers who were directly involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and exploring whether they could be court-martialed for their involvement….”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-transition-team-compiling-list-current-

former-us-military-office-rcna180489 .

How the prosecution charges a sexual assault is important because consent has different legal meanings. United States v. Mendoza is an important new case that highlights the issue.

As military appellate defense lawyers and trial defense counsel we have been arguing the Mendoza issue for some time (as have others). So we were pleased to see that CAAF agrees with us in Mendoza.

Consent is a critical element in sexual assault cases under the UCMJ. The text distinguishes between two types of sexual assault:

There is good news for about 800 prior servicemembers who where discharged because of their sexuality.

At leadership’s direction, the Services have completed 800 of 863 discharges without the person having to apply for one.

“[O]f the nearly 13,500 individuals who were administratively separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, and served long enough to receive a merit-based characterization of service, 96% now have an honorable discharge.”

Military.com reports new efforts within the Marine Corps to track extremism in the ranks.

Drew F. Lawrence, Marine Corps Extremist, Gang Activity Must Be Immediately Reported Up the Chain, Service Says. Military.com, 4 September 2024.

The Marine Corps is streamlining how its commands report protests, extremism and gang activity among Marines, according to an administrative message released late last month, issues that each of the military services have long struggled with.

A 2024 GAO Report to the Committee on the Armed Services, House of Representatives tells you all you need to know to justify hiring an experienced military defense law firm to represent you at court-martial.

Senior officials from each service also raised concerns about the newly established Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) and the likelihood that it will exacerbate issues of inexperience within certain litigation positions. Generally, judge advocates are expected to become eligible for assignment to the OSTC after 2 to 4 years of litigation experience. OSTC experience standards, coupled with the limited number of litigators who meet these requirements, will likely force the services to rely on inexperienced litigators to serve as defense counsel or other positions that lack similar requirements. Further, these officials stated that the focus on OSTC experience standards could lead to a potentially significant imbalance in the experience levels of defense and prosecution assigned to litigate the same case.

Those of us who appear in cases as civilian military defense counsel have been saying this for years.