For those interested in the history of the Constitution and its judicial interpretation, the George Washington Law Review has a:
COMMEMORATING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF FARRAND’S RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
edition. Volume 80, No. 5, includes:
h/t to Prof. Berman TG.
The title of this post is the headline of this new New York Times segment of its series "Room for Debate." The NY Timesbrought together five leading lights to comment on this question (all of whom appear to supply variations on the answer "Yes"). Here is how the segment sets up the debate, followed by links to the must-read pieces that provide five different answers to the question:
A U.S. district judge in Denver recently rejected a plea bargain in a child pornography case because the defendant had agreed to waive his right to appeal. The judge said such a deal would undermine the purpose of appellate courts. (He later accepted a plea bargain without that stipulation.)
The Inspector Rutledge detective stories are a favorite of mine. To quote an Amazon review:
[T]he books are set in the period just after the First World War, and Inspector Rutledge is a veteran of said conflict. Even more unique, he’s haunted by the ghost of one of his subordinates, a corporal whom Rutledge had to shoot and kill after the man panicked and tried to run away during a battle. The dead man doesn’t blame Rutledge for the incident, not exactly anyway, and serves as a sort of alter ego for Rutledge. You’re never entirely certain whether Hamish MacLeod’s ghost is really there, or merely a figment of Rutledge’s imagination, given that he was horribly scarred psychologically by the war.
Hamish talks to the inspector and is often quicker to spot a problem, an inconsistency, or a wrong – “b’ware” he’ll say, or sometimes just “’ware.”
James Gow, War and War Crimes: Military, Legitimacy and Success in Armed Conflict, Coumbia Univ. Press, Dec. 2011.
Necessity and proportionality inform the laws of war, but how do these principles work in modern warfare? What new pressures do the practitioners of war face, especially in light of rapid changes in strategy and policy and an increasing emphasis on ethics and legality?
Wars waged in fluctuating environments make the legitimacy of armed force hard to justify, especially among diverse international and transnational publics. More than ever, strategy has come to embrace justice and law as crucial components of military success, but legitimacy is fragile and easily contested, and today’s militaries struggle to respond positively, consistently , and legally to an ever-shifting dynamic. Drawing on empirical research and interviews with seasoned military professionals, this volume describes how militaries can work successfully within the politics-law-strategy nexus to foster and maintain a sense of legitimacy in war. James Gow clearly defines the mutual relationship between wars and their outcomes, pinpointing the moment when a war act becomes a war crime, especially within multidimensional combat. Taking an initial, bold step in reconciling a troubling and taboo issue, Gow provides strategists, policymakers, and others with a framework for mitigating negative outcomes.
Do you remember Marine Captain Zander? A distinguished graduate of the Naval Justice School, and having participated in reviewing about 200 of his ROT’s a pretty good trial lawyer viewed against his contemporaries. I posted about his activities in 2009, “I’ve been Zandered! Who remembers that name?” Well he’s back – in court.
Deseret News reports.
A BYU law school graduate who passed himself off as a decorated war veteran and licensed military attorney faces more than two dozen federal charges, including allegedly stealing thousands of dollars from the Paiute Indian Tribe.
Revising Harmless Error: Making Innocence Relevant to Direct Appeals
Helen A. Anderson
University of Washington – School of Law
October 27, 2010
Abstract:
The direct appeal of a convicted defendant is almost never concerned with actual innocence. The system seems to privilege procedural claims, and it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get an appellate court to take seriously a claim of factual error such as the claim that a witness lied or was mistaken. The disconnect between appeals and actual innocence is ironic, since most jurisdictions provide funding for direct appeals, but not for collateral attacks where claims of actual innocence can be litigated. This article focuses on one aspect of appellate review that could in theory be made more likely to provide relief to the innocent through more reliable fact-finding: the harmless error analysis. It is in assessing whether an error was harmless that the courts come closest to thinking about innocence on appeal. According to the Innocence Project, the leading cause of wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification, followed by "unvalidated/improper forensics," false confessions, and informants. Current harmless error analysis runs contrary to these findings, giving undue weight to precisely the kind of evidence often implicated in wrongful convictions, and not sufficiently considering the impact of erroneously admitted evidence on the jury. This article looks at the history of harmless error analysis, how it is applied in cases where the likely causes of wrongful conviction are implicated, and what changes can be made to reinvigorate harmless error so that courts take seriously the possibility of innocence given what we have learned through DNA exoneration’s.
Not completely off topic, the Army Times reports:
Soldiers are dangerously starving themselves, gobbling diet pills and laxatives — even going under the knife in costly liposuction surgery — all to meet the Army’s weight standards and avoid losing their careers.
Everyone remembers Pierce and Pierce credit – right. DMLHS at CasaCAAFLog has found this interesting opinion from the federal district court.
This case is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss (no. 6). At issue is whether the United States government, consistent with the constitutional requirement of due process, may prosecute a military servicemember in a civilian court for a crime committed on a military installation when the servicemember (a) has already received “non-judicial punishment” pursuant to Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 815 (“Article 15”); (b) has thereby waived his right to trial by court martial; (c) has not been told that he would be prosecuted in a civilian court anyway; and (d) could have foreclosed both non-judicial punishment and the civilian prosecution by asserting his right to a court-martial. While defendant argues several grounds for dismissal, the court grants the motion on the ground that under the circumstances presented here, this civilian prosecution violates defendant’s right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Anticipate some change in procedures at Quantico.
Now available:
Command Influence: A story of Korea and the politics of injustice, Robert A Shaines
Robert A. Shaines today announced the release of Command Influence, A Story of Korea and the Politics of Injustice, published by Outskirts Press. Shaines’ fascinating peek into this less than honorable moment in American history shows not only the wholesale problems that permeated the military justice system at that time, but also the lack of preparedness of America to engage in the Korean War, both in terms of our foreign policy and our military’s lack of equipment and training.
Here is an interesting read. Kathrine J. Chapman, The Untouchables: Private Military Contractors’ Criminal Accountability under the UCMJ, 63 VANDERBILT L. REV. 1047 (2010).
The author argues that:
PMCs must be held accountable for their criminal actions, not merely to provide personal justice for those injured by their crimes, but also for the strategic objectives of organizing the U.S. military’s
available manpower effectively and retaining the support of citizens both domestic and abroad. At the same time, it is simply impractical to bring criminal sanctions against all PMCs for every possible crime
that they might commit. Criminal sanctions against contractors should, at the very least, reach egregious crimes and should focus on quasi-military PMCs. Operating at the battlefront, quasi-military PMCs pose the greatest threat to the U.S. military’s ability to control the contingency operation. Additionally, because they bear arms and wear uniforms like members of the U.S. military, the local populace is more likely to attribute their actions to the U.S. military. By providing justice for victims, criminal sanctions will further the strategic goal of winning the locals’ support and trust during counterinsurgency efforts.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog