Articles Posted in Up Periscope

Here is a DOD press release with more details of the new charges.  Again they point out that it is going to be a non-capital referral recommendation.

ABC News reports:

The Army said Wednesday it has filed 22 additional charges against Pvt. 1st Class Bradley E. Manning, the soldier suspected of providing classified government documents published by the ****** anti-secrecy group.

Army officials said the charges accuse Manning of using unauthorized software on government computers to extract classified information, illegally download it and transmit the data for public release by what the Army termed "the enemy."

CAAF’s Journal for 28 February:

No. 11-5003/NA. U.S. v. Thomas J. HAYES. CCA 201000366. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT’S UNSWORN STATEMENT DURING PRESENTENCING RAISED THE “POSSIBLE DEFENSE” OF DURESS.

I’ve posted the link to Camreta argument today.

Another Scalia’ism

It takes two to tango[.]  At p. 6.

Click to access 09-1454.pdf

Here courtesy of fourthamendment.com is a case which demonstrates how the police benefit from the benefit of doubt.

Trial court’s ruling denying motion to suppress was erroneously denied. While the trial court has the credibility call and great deference in making findings of fact at a suppression hearing, the surveillance video of the area of defendant’s detention at the suppression hearing clearly contradicted the officer’s testimony about where and how things happened, and it showed that the motion to suppress should have been granted. State v. Thompson, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 241 (La. App. 2d Cir. February 23, 2011).  (Emphasis added.)

The judge in this case appears to have believed the police officer, despite the video of the encounter which contradicts the police testimony.

Thanks to a lurker:

The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this final order to temporarily place five synthetic cannabinoids into the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions. The substances are 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018), 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073), 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200), 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1 R, 3 S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497), and 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1 R, 3 S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol; CP-47,497 C8 homologue). This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of these synthetic cannabinoids into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As a result of this order, the full effect of the CSA and its implementing regulations including criminal, civil and administrative penalties, sanctions and regulatory controls of Schedule I substances will be imposed on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, and exportation of these synthetic cannabinoids.

Here is a piece in the fayobserver.com about United States v. Gray, a long ongoing DP case.

CAAF has decided United States v. Watson.

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT APPELLANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE WAS VOIDABLE AND PROPERLY REVOKED AND DID NOT REMIT THE ADJUDGED DISMISSAL.

For the reasons set forth below we conclude that Appellant received a valid discharge, and reverse the decision of the court below.

The Supreme Court will hear argument tomorrow in a case important to military practitioners.  What’s the law when NCIS, OSI, CGIS, CID, drags your child out of the courtroom and coerces them into admitting that a parent (usually the father) has abuse them?

SCOTUSBlog has this:  Argument preview: Do Fourth Amendment warrant requirements attach to the in-school interview of a child whom authorities suspect may be the victim of sexual abuse at home?

On March 1, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument in the consolidated cases of Camreta v. Greene (No. 09-1454) and Alford v. Greene (No. 09-1478).