Articles Posted in Uncategorized

CAAF’s Daily Journal for 25 March 2016 has this entry.

No. 16-0413/AR. In re Christopher E. Strunk, Christopher B. Garvey, and Harold W. Van Allen, Petitioners. Notice is hereby given that a petition under 28 USC §1651 for writ of mandamus and injunction equity relief in the matter of the New York Republican Party POTUS Primary on April 19, 2016, and the National General Election on November 8, 2016, was filed under Rule 27(a) on March 18, 2016, and placed on the docket this 24th day of March, 2016.  On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Click to access nacdl-comments-draft-6-mpc-sexual-assault-and-related-offenses-docx-1.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2753718

The Sex Offender program is under revision.  The old sentencing requirements were 45 months to include abatement time (earned time/good conduct time/transportation time and consideration for treatment starting every quarter).

The new Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) requires at least 31 months sentencing to be considered for the program.  We do not advocate increasing or decreasing sentencing based on treatment requirements but in order to be eligible for SOTP the member must be sentenced to at least 31 months at time of arrival.

United States v. Plant was a difficult appeal, for a lot of reasons.  Ultimately we were able to get some relief at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.  The court set-aside a conviction of child endangerment and ordered a sentence reassessment.

Faced with the issue back in the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals we argued that the case should be returned to the field for a rehearing on the sentence.  However, we argued the alternative remedy of disapproving one year of confinement.  We did that because that was the maximum potential punishment for the child endangerment charge.

Today we received the news that the AFCCA agreed with us on setting aside one year of confinement.  This means Plant will be released 16 months earlier than expected.

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has an interesting opinion and reminder about the relationship of improper relationships when there is an allegation of sexual assault.

United States v. Delgado, ARMY 20140927 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 6 January 2016).

AR 600-20, para. 4-14b. prohibits relationships between soldiers of different ranks if they:

Is this agent still investigating?  Does this agent have any pending investigations or appearance as a witness in a UCMJ case?

A man arrested just before Christmas for allegedly pulling out his gun at a restaurant because he didn’t like the bill is a Special Agent for the U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigation Division.

Curtiss Davis is also accused of exposing himself to a female employee and demanding a sex act.

We are all familiar with the interactions that can occur between the military and civilian prosecutors when deciding who will prosecute a servicemember for crimes in the “civilian” community.  Sometimes the result is a civilian prosecution and the military takes adverse administrative actions, sometimes the civilians hand over the case to the military, and sometimes both proceed.  Here is an interesting news item from Washington State.

A former soldier accused of murdering his wife can’t get a fair trial because the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office gave confidential police records to the Army as part of a “scheme” to help the military discharge him, a defense attorney alleged in court Monday.

That argument failed to persuade Superior Court Judge Jack Nevin to halt the prosecution of the former Spc. Skylar Nemetz, but it opened a window on how Pierce County and Joint Base Lewis-McChord decide how to hold soldiers accountable for offenses committed in civilian communities.

It appears we are hard-wired to believe stories.  So actually requiring us to believe isn’t that hard–except it seems in sexual assault cases.  Everyone is aware that the military requires any sexual assault complainant to be believed. A cynic will say, that this is required despite evidence showing falsity in the complaint.  A cynic could argue that there are orders not to investigate properly for fear of “victim-blaming.”  There arevalid reasons why a sexual assault complaint should be handled properly and a complainant given appropriate care. But that does not mean an inadequate investigation should result, that a story should not be validated and that a false report not be challenged.

Maria Konnikova has an interesting piece in The New Yorker, from when part of my title comes from: How Stories Deceive,  The NewYorker, 29 December 2015.  On the surface the victims she presents gave a plausible story which the media and others grabbed on to.

“The media frenzy began right on cue. It was such an odd case, and everyone had a theory.”