Articles Posted in Up Periscope

Navy Times reports the issuance of another Secretarial letter of censure:   In a slap at the fading and officially out-of-favor tradition of racy, sarcastic and irreverent aviation call signs, a just-retired Navy fighter squadron commanding officer was censured by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus Wednesday for failing to halt and subsequently condoning the hazing of a junior officer at a 2009 call sign review board where assembled officers voted to call the officer “Romo’s Bitch,” the Navy announced late Friday.

Army Times reports:   An Army medic says a soldier accused of masterminding the murders of three Afghan civilians last year boasted about one of the killings.  The News Tribune newspaper reports that Pvt. Robert Stevens told an investigating officer during a hearing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord south of Seattle Friday that Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs of Billings, Mont., acknowledged participating in the February 2010 killing.

Navy Times Reports:   The commander of an EA-18G Growler jet squadron on deployment in the Middle East was fired for what officials said is an “alcohol-related incident” in Bahrain last week, the Navy said Tuesday.

Here are some thoughts from Professor McElhaney, in the ABA Journal on examining experts at depositions.  It is not too hard to replace “deposition” with “Article 32.”  I know, I know, it’s not often the expert shows up at a 32.  But other witnesses do.  Some of the same principles apply to any witness at an Article 32.

http://goo.gl/4rcFX

Navy Times reports:  The commanding officer of Navy Recruiting District Nashville was fired Wednesday, the 15th CO relieved this year and the second in two days.

The other day I posted an item about Army tattoo policy.  Here is one for the Air Force reported in Time.

Army Times reports:  A Muslim soldier from Fort Campbell who won conscientious objector status but then faced a court-martial after being charged with possessing child pornography has gone AWOL, an Army spokesman said Wednesday.

It appears the Major Hasan is releasing Mr. Galligan as his attorney.  Had this from a journalist who called asking for “why?”

Politico reports however:  The lead attorney for Maj. Nodal Hasan, the man charged in the 2009 shooting rampage at Ft. Hood in Texas, says he is temporarily stepping down, according to the Associated Press.

Fox News indicates:  But it had been rumored that Galligan might leave. Fox News has learned that a new filing in the case shows a key White House intelligence report on the shooting is still being withheld from the defense. Galligan also had a long-standing complaint that his requests to get the proper security clearances for the case were ignored. The new filing supports Gilligan’s claim that he is still without the clearances he has requested to adequately defend his client.

UPI Asia reports:  A key White House report is being kept from the lawyer for the Army psychiatrist charged in the worst mass shooting on a U.S. military base, his lawyer says.  The Army has also not provided all e-mails between suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awaki, who Hasan allegedly asked for spiritual guidance about violence, the lawyer said in a filing as Hasan was to be arraigned at 2:30 p.m. CDT Wednesday in a Fort Hood, Texas, military court.

Up until, today I think, I would visit NMCCA’s website looking for new “opinions,” and then read each of them looking for interesting issues and points, etc.

That was frustrating.   As DMLHS posted the other day, the court hasn’t issued a published opinion for some time, and the number of unpublished opinions was small compared all of the decisions.  So, I and others spent some wasted time reading a lot of one liners.

Today that changed!

The post title is plagarized, um, no its not, I’ve given attribution, from the VA Bar CLE weekly update.

Formerly under Virginia law, cases in which a party had failed to present an argument in the trial court were not eligible for the appellate courts to apply the "right result for the wrong reason" doctrine. This was so because the trial court had not had an opportunity to rule on the argument that was being raised for the first time on appeal. In Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 580, 701 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2010), the Virginia Supreme Court reversed this interpretation of the doctrine and held that a party’s failure to present an argument in the trial court does not preclude affirmance under the "right result for the wrong reason" doctrine as long as all of the necessary evidence to support the argument was presented at trial.
The Court stated that consideration of the facts in the record and whether additional factual evidence would be necessary to support the newly advanced reason is the proper focus of the application of the doctrine. The Court further agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that an appellee may also "urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon matter overlooked or ignored by it." (quoting United States v. Am. Ry. Express Co, 265 U.S. 425, 435 (1924)). The application of the doctrine was also addressed in a civil case decided the same day, but the Court reached the opposite result where the facts of the case developed at trial that should have supported the newly stated ground were in conflict. Banks v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 612, 618, 701 S.E.2d 437, 440-41 (2010).

It’s about evidence and technology.  Do enough computer crimes in the military and you’ll see why this article about the Casey Anthony trial has some peripheral interest.

New York Times reports:  Assertions by the prosecution that Casey Anthonyconducted extensive computer searches on the word “chloroform” were based on inaccurate data, a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday.

He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.

Stars & Stripes has this interesting piece about how it (apparently) may have been engaged, without its knowledge or consent, in hosting CP.