Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The Ndavy fired three SEAL leaders in the aftermath of the alleged rape on the Iraq air base and charged one operator, an enlisted SEAL, with sexual assault, aggravated assault via strangulation and assault by battery for allegedly biting the victim on the face, according to his charge sheet. He faces a court-martial in November. A hearing in the case was held Friday at Naval Base San Diego. At the hearing, the lawyer for the SEAL, said he was concerned his client, who identifies as “non-white,” cannot get a fair trial because of systemic racism in the military justice system, pointing out that there are no Black judges on the Navy bench.

On 27 August 2020, CAAF issued its opinion in United States v. Bergdahl.

  • “Thus, simply stated, it was the totality of the circumstances surrounding Appellant’s misconduct rather than any outside influences that foreordained the Army’s handling and disposition of this case. Therefore, an objective, disinterested observer would not harbor any significant doubts about the ultimate fairness of these court-martial proceedings. Accordingly, we hold that there was no appearance of unlawful command influence in this case, and we affirm the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
  • As a threshold matter, based squarely on the plain language of Article 22, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 822 (2012), Article 37, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 104, we hold that Senator McCain was capable of committing unlawful command influence and that a sitting president of the United States is also capable of committing unlawful command influence. Slip op. at 6.

“I didn’t want to plead guilty.” Followed with “my lawyers forced me.”

That’s a not infrequent complaint with appellant’s who plead guilty.

“In another, the defendent objected to the Navy counsel’s advice to plead “guilty.” He stated that though he admitted guilt, “he could have beaten it with a good lawyer.” Chaplain Reports on Prisoner’s Opinions of Naval Justice. 5 January 1947, at 15.

Salem News has an article about “SEALs pulled from Iraq.” The article is a lengthy one. From the article here is why there is at least one pending (possible) appellate case.

  • The Navy fired three SEAL leaders in the aftermath of the alleged rape on the Iraq air base and charged Special Warfare Operator First Class Adel A. Enayat, an enlisted SEAL, with sexual assault, aggravated assault via strangulation and assault by battery for allegedly biting the victim on the face, according to his charge sheet. He faces a court-martial in November.
  • A hearing in the case was held Friday at Naval Base San Diego. At the hearing, Jeremiah Sullivan, the lawyer for the SEAL, said he was concerned Enayat, who identifies as “non-white,” cannot get a fair trial because of systemic racism in the military justice system, pointing out that there are no Black judges on the Navy bench.

Scandal on Plum Island: A Commander Becomes the Accused
By Marian E. Lindberg
East End Press, 416 pages

Think of Plum Island, and what probably comes to mind are natural habitats, a lighthouse and remoteness, all of which were highlighted in a recent report on the island’s potential.

Most people probably wouldn’t think of military intrigue, courtroom drama and sexual politics.

Prison inmates retain a Fourth Amendment reasonableness right against abusive strip and body cavity searches enough to state a claim here. Qualified immunity is reserved for later. Henry v. Hulett, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25390 (7th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020) (Easterbrook dissents that this right has to be found in the Eighth Amendment, not the Fourth):

Importantly, the Fourth and Eighth Amendments have different roles to play with respect to bodily searches and protect different categories of constitutional rights. The Eighth Amendment safeguards prisoners against the use of searches that correctional officers subjectively intend as a form of punishment. See Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319-20. Because reasonableness is an objective test, a defendant’s subjective state of mind is irrelevant to a court’s Fourth Amendment analysis. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 398 (“[T]he terms ‘cruel’ and ‘punishments’ clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the term ‘unreasonable’ does not.”). The Fourth Amendment thus protects prisoners from searches that may be related to or serve some institutional objective, but where guards nevertheless perform the searches in an unreasonable manner, in an unreasonable place, or for an unreasonable purpose. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 559. This last consideration is particularly salient in the case before us: certainly, a court need not give as much deference to a prison administrator’s assessment of the necessity of a training exercise as it does to measures taken in response to the actual presence of weapons, contraband, or other immediate security concerns.

Brought to us by John Wesley Hallm, fourthamendment.com.

What happens after trial.

Here is another case of mine that found itself in federal court–United States v. Mingo. When the Feds tell you to register and follow the rules they mean it.

In January 2005, Mingo enlisted in the United States Army. See Sealed Complaint at 2, United States v. Mingo, No. 16 Cr. 597 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2016) (the “Complaint”). The following year, he was convicted by court martial in the Military District of Washington of, inter alia, one count of rape of another member of his platoon in violation of Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Order of Nov. 30 at 1. He was sentenced principally to 30 months’ confinement and was discharged from military service in September 2008. See id.

Contact Information