Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The most potentially relevant is McWilliams v. Dunn, No. 16-5294, involves a question regarding the degree of independence needed for appointed mental health experts under Ake v. Oklahoma.

Then there are:

Weaver v. Massachusetts, No. 16-240:  The defendant claims his lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to a closure of the courtroom during empanelment of the jury.  Violation of the right to a public trial, when considered directly, is a “structural” error that is reversible without a showing that it actually prejudiced the defendant, but an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim requires a showing of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.  Does IAC require a showing of prejudice when the underlying error is “structural”?  I believe Strickland is clear enough that the answer is “yes,” but there is enough of a circuit split for the high court to take it up.

On this date in 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus was convicted of treason by a French court-martial.

J’accuse. “[A] phrase made famous by Emile Zola in a public letter attacking the irregularities of the Dreyfus trial (published Jan. 13, 1898).”

The accusation was enough.

The SVC also testified at the post-trial Article 39(a), UCMJ, session. When asked by the trial defense counsel if it was the “standard in practice as an SVC to meet with the military judge ex parte,” the SVC stated, “Generally, yes. We’re usually not included in [R.C.M.] 802 conferences, so generally the judge will speak with us, kind of one-on-one, sometimes before the trial begins and discuss just kind of administrative matters.” The SVC did not recall having a post-trial feedback session with the military judge.

Slip op. at 2.

In United States v. Turner, the AFCCA had several issues before it, two being:

When I read that, I thought of “The Invisible War.”

Friend and forensic psychologist Reneau Kennedy sent an interesting piece across the transom today.  She forwarded a piece by Karen Franklin:

“In the Dark” shines brilliant light on bungled Jacob Wetterling case

Good friend Gene Fidell has drawn attention to a news release about the new report.  In particular he notes that 23% of those surveyed last year would not recommend making a report.  The 2015 survey report is Enclosure 3.

Interestingly, last year nearly a number of respondents were dissatisfied with the various services available to a complaining witness.

Specifically, 80% of respondents were satisfied with overall services provided by the SVC/VLC during the military justice process, 74% of respondents were satisfied with the services provided by the UVA/VA, and 68% of respondents were satisfied with the services provided by the SARC. Across these individuals, less than 20% were actively dissatisfied with the services provided by the UVA/VA (19% dissatisfied) or SARC (17% dissatisfied). Few respondents were dissatisfied with the SVC/VLC program, which was the highest rated resource across all respondents (only 7% actively dissatisfied).

Appellate Advocacy 2016

Date & Time: Friday, October 21, 2016 from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm

CLE Credit: Yes

OCR Finds Unfair Disciplinary Process for Accused Student Violates Title IX

No. 16-0704/AR. U.S. v. Dwight Harris, Jr. CCA 20131045. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. HILLS, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016), THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN APPLYING MRE 414 TO CHARGED CONDUCT TO SHOW APPELLANT’S PROPENSITY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED CONDUCT.

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue.

https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/flip.it%2F-3kqa8-some-criminal-forensics-techniques-may-/f-e42c55c244%2Fuproxx.com

The recent Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals case illustrates why defense counsel, and staff judge advocates, should exercise care with victim impact statements submitted post trial.

In United States v. Goss, the court reminds us that:

Article 60, UCMJ, was amended to include a new subsection “(d)” that authorized the submission of victim impact statements. See National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, § 1706, 127 Stat. 672, 960-61 (2013). However, the amended Article 60, UCMJ, does not address what may be included in a victim impact statement: