“Adolescents, more than adults, tend to discount the future and to afford greater weight to the short-term consequences of decisions.”
Kim Taylor-Thompson, States of Mind/States of Development, 14 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 143, 154 (2003).
How often do I think of this principle (cited to in The Virginia Lawyer, and United States v. Berry), when a client wants to upgrade their discharge.
I came across a piece entitled, “We Love the Pentagon’s ‘Encylopedia of Ethical Failure’” which is on medium.com.
The piece notes what we have all seen that the last few years have seen many ethical challenges for the military. Likely we know more about the specific cases because of The Internet and Google.
Individually, the cases are all bad news. The good news is that authorities often catch and punish government cheats, thieves and frauds. Penalties for ripping off the American taxpayer range from huge fines to hard time in prison.
Professor Schlueter takes a stab at answering the question.
David A. Schlueter, The Military Justice Conundrum: Justice or Discipline?, 215 MIL. L. REV. 1 (2013).
Why even ask the question let alone seek an answer. Well it depends on where you stand on the current issue of a commander’s authority over courts-martials. If you want to maintain the current system you have to counter those who argue for change. If you want change you have to convince commanders their ability to pursue the mission will not be compromised because of an inability to maintain discipline.
Each week CrimProfBlog publishes the top ten downloaded articles. Here are three that may be useful to military justice practitioners.
Jonathan Abel, Stanford Law School – Constitutional Law Center
Your weekend reading program.
Many, many, many years ago, as a police officer I had attempted to arrest a suspect who successfully got away. Some days later, I saw a CID officer bringing in a person to the station – and I said, “that’s him.” It wasn’t, I was wrong.
My first general court-martial in 1980 was a contested double armed robbery. We had extensive litigation over a classic “show-up” at the crime scene. The client was restrained in a police car, the victim was brought over to look at him and identified him. That hard fought motion was lost. (I actually remember this case as my first “war story” in the defense trenches for other reasons – for example when the client gets in a fight with four chasers in front of the members. My quickest not guilty finding was less than five minutes, this was my quickest guilty finding – less than 15 minutes.)
has published a symposium – articles related to military justice, specifically sexual assault cases. Both sides will find something in the articles. Of particular interest are two articles: Major Seamone’s article about secondary affect on military justice practitioners from over exposure to sexual assault cases, and Colonel Schenk’s disagreement with the statistics and compilation of sexual assault statistics.
Major Evan R. Seamone, Sex Crimes Litigation as Hazardous Duty: Practical Tools for Trauma-Exposed Prosecutors, Defense Counsel, and Paralegals, 11 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 487 (2014).
Lisa M. Schenck, Informing the Debate About Sexual Assault in the Military Services; Is the Department of Defense Its Own Worst Enemy?, 11 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 579 (2014).
On occasion I note civilian court opinions that reference or rely on military appellate case law. In my view, because of technology we see more courts, especially federal courts, cite to military appellate case law. In United States v. Buchanan, the accused sought to prevent a guardian ad litem (GAL) from filing motions. The court denied the accused’s motion, and in the process cited to LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364, 358 (C.A.A.F. 2013).
Safeguarding the Commander’s Authority to Review the Findings of a Court-Martial, Andrew S. Williams, Brigham Young University, June 5, 2013, 28 BYU Journal of Public Law (April 2014, Forthcoming)
Abstract:“Do you really think that after a jury has found someone guilty, and dismissed someone from the military for sexual assault, that one person [the commander], over the advice of their legal counselor, should be able to say, ‘Never mind’?” Senator Claire McCaskill recently posed this question in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, as she and others expressed outrage over the disapproval of a sexual assault conviction by a military commander. Her question reflects a justifiably profound respect for the verdicts of juries, one that runs deep in American legal tradition, but reveals a basic misunderstanding about the court-martial panel in the military.
U.S. District Court (Northern District of Iowa)
SCOTUSBlog has this of potential interest.
The petition of the day is:
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog