Thanks to LawProfsBlog here is a link to an interesting article:
Regulating the Plea-Bargaining Market: From Caveat Emptor to Consumer Protection
Stephanos Bibas, University of Pennsylvania Law School, U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-33, California Law Review, Vol. 99, Forthcoming
For all of the criticisms of military justice and the UCMJ, you don’t have this at court-martial as tipped by Sentencing Law & Policy blog.
Cargill, a federal public defender, was perturbed by a rarely discussed U.S. court rule that critics say conflicts with the presumption of judicial openness. In the Western District of Virginia, as in many other U.S. court districts, a probation officer makes a secret sentencing recommendation to the judge. Cargill accidentally saw the probation officer’s recommendation for his client. The report was "misleading and inaccurate," Cargill wrote in a protest letter. (Emphasis added.)
Here is a link to the full article in the Roanoke (VA) Times.
Leaks from Members (or sometimes military judges) occasionally give rise to appellate litigation.
Here is an interesting piece on federal evidence review:
Motion for new trial on criminal extortion and bribery case denied, despite juror’s statement to newspaper after the verdict that because the defendants did not testify, the juror reasoned that "[if] they were innocent, they would have testified.’”; since members of the jury did not learn of the defendant’s failure to testify through improper channels, the evidence of their discussions was not admissible under FRE 606(b) as it was not an extrinsic influence, inUnited States v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2006) (Nos. 05-1361, 05-1435)
Air Force Times reports:
A U.S. soldier was taken into custody after an Afghan detainee was found dead in his cell, apparently from a gunshot wound, NATO said in a statement Tuesday night.
Military.com reports:
World Net Daily quotes Neal Puckett as follows:
He confirmed to WND that there will be new directions for the defense, but could not elaborate.
"All I can really say is the case is going to be handled differently from here on out," he said.
Federal Evidence Review references:
In conspiracy and arson trial, reversing and remanding when trial court failed "to make adequate inquiries regarding news stories" that appeared during deliberations and their impact on juror’s deliberations; the judge erroneously failed to explore "whether any juror heard any of the information" and its impact on the jury, in United States v. Waters, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2010) (No. 08-30222)
The Ninth Circuit recently considered the trial court’s responsibilities to make specific inquiry of jurors when "adverse publicity occurs during deliberations" of the jury. The case can help clear up confusion about the role of the trial court, particularly in light of FRE 606(b) limiting inquiry into a verdict.
Here SignOn San Diego reports the unusual situation of public release of pretrial agreement “discussions.”
The Coast Guardsman piloting the boat that killed 8-year-old Anthony DeWeese might have served a year or less in prison if his lawyers had pursued a plea deal dangled by the prosecution.
It is unclear how the emails surfaced publically.
MAJ Hasan’s UCMJ Article 32 hearing and likely court-martial is drawing and will continue to draw lots of attention — of course, duh. But just as we have seen in other high profile cases there are opportunities for what I call teachable moments. Here are two from the item posted by CAAFLog about the witness who was ordered to destroy a video of the shooting he made on his cellphone. Forget the rhetoric about whether or not the Army was engaged in a cover-up.
1. Contemporaneous video’s and photos can provide vital evidence for both sides.
Nixon said he remembered Hasan because of “his stature and just how he composed himself — stoic.”
I posted before about the CO of USS OHIO being detached for cause and the number of Navy CO’s DFC’d this year. Now Navy Times has obtained a copy of documents related this case which appears to include a copy of the command investigation.
The arrival of a birthday card in the ship’s mail addressed to Capt. Ronald Murray Gero, who was turning 56, marked the beginning of the end of his command of the guided-missile submarine Ohio.
It appears various members of the crew started collecting evidence, and then:
Here is a link to the military judge’s sentencing statement in the case of Canadian Captain Semrau. Obviously it is notable because the practice is for the judge to provide a reasons for sentencing, but secondly is the reliance on United States v. Maynulet and United States v. Horne (LEXIS doesn’t show a “Horne” case, and I could not find a case listed on the ACCA site) for comparison.
I was also informed of two American court martial cases involving the killing of a wounded and unarmed enemy. Both incidents occurred in 2004 in Iraq. In the first court martial, Captain Maynulet was involved in an operation to capture or kill a high-value target. Immediately after the initial engagement with the enemy, Captain Maynulet shot a mortally wounded insurgent because he thought it was the humane thing to do and that it would ease his suffering. Captain Maynulet was charged with assault with intent to commit murder. He pled not guilty and was found guilty of assault with intent of commit voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to dismissal from the service. Evidence at sentencing was extremely favourable for the offender.
The second court martial involved Staff Sergeant Horne. Members of his platoon fired upon trucks carrying insurgents. The second truck was set on fire. Staff Sergeant Horne attempted to save the victim who was sitting in the burning truck loaded with explosives. The victim fell to the ground and was severely injured. Staff Sergeant Horne spoke with his officer and with another staff sergeant about putting the Iraqi out of his misery. The officer told him to do it and the other staff sergeant shot the Iraqi three to five times. When Staff Sergeant Horne realized the Iraqi was still alive, he fired one shot into the victim’s head. He did so to put him out of his misery. Staff Sergeant Horne pled guilty to premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder but to took exception to the word "premeditation" and he pled not guilty to solicitation to commit premeditated murder. He was sentenced to confinement for three years, reduction to the rank of private, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonourable discharge. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to confinement for one year, reduction to the rank of private, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a bad conduct discharge.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
