Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Ramrod Five sitrep 6

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Guardian (UK) has this report:

Twelve American soldiers face trial over an secret "kill team" that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies.

Five of the soldiers are charged with murdering three Afghan men who were allegedly killed for sport in separate attacks this year. Seven other soldiers are accused of covering up the killings as well as a violent assault on a new recruit who exposed the murders when he reported other abuses, including members of the unit smoking hashish stolen from civilians.

Coast Guard boating collision update 3

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

San Diego Online has this short piece on the Coast Guard boating case and the ongoing Article 32, UCMJ, hearing which began today.

Lawyers for the driver of a Coast Guard boat that killed an 8-year-old San Diego boy in December said the Coast Guard is prosecuting Petty Officer 3rd Class Paul Ramos in order to duck responsibility, and a lawsuit.

“The family is rightly suing the Coast Guard,” said Navy Cmdr. Brian Koshulsky, one of Ramos’ military attorneys. “It’s in the Coast Guard’s interest to blame my client.”

CAAF opens up

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here are some interesting tidbits from the CAAF orientation session for new attorneys courtesy of NIMJ.blog.

As for the rules changes, a big (and quite welcome, in my opinion) change is the new system in which nearly all CAAF pleadings are eligible for electronic filing. Be sure to redact privacy/sensitive information from such filings, as final briefs will be placed on CAAF’s webpage, starting this term.

Other changes make the already small needle’s eye to SCOTUS more microscopic for military appeals. While CAAF judges previously granted review of all appeals in which the appellant was serving 30 years or more in confinement, that is no longer the policy. Furthermore, for cases that come back to CAAF after a remand to the CCAs, CAAF will no longer automatically grant review of the case.

Back to real law

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is an interesting technology case from the Third Circuit as reported by the Wall Street Journal blog.

Technology has made it increasingly easy for the government to track an individual’s whereabouts.

But on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit ratcheted back the government’s surveillance power, finding that judges have the right to require warrants before police get cell phone records that could pinpoint a customer’s location. Clickhere for the AP story; here for the Legal Intelligencer story; herefor the opinion, written by Judge Dolores Sloviter.

Up periscope

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

North Country Times and Marine Corps Times report:

[T]he trial for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich was delayed until Nov. 1 because a key prosecution witness, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent, had a bad accident and is recovering from surgery.

Air Force Times reports:

More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – IV

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

And now for the political question doctrine.

See fn. 2., I believe at one point Mr. Jensen was complaining that the military judge wasn’t going to apply any “civilian” cases.

See fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.

More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – III

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

And now for some history. Those with some basic familiarity with military law and who have been following the blogs of those with military law experience will recognize the cases cited.

More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – II

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

From the conclusions of law:

More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I posted a tease here, and it didn’t take long for Dwight “My Liege” Sullivan to crack the code.

In other words, Judge Lind used the word “embarrassment” in precisely the political question doctrine context (and using almost exactly the same words) as CAAF in New and the Supremes in Baker v. Carr. And all the breathless birther commentary saying that she was attempting to avoid personal embarrassment to President Obama is just so much guano.

As always one has to admire Dwight’s pithy commentary. OK, here is some more (working from a “bigger” computer, netbooks have some limitations).

Should LTC Lakin be embarrassed?

September 7, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Some reporting of last weeks Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing appears to attribute the military judge’s ruling to a desire to save the president embarrassment. I believe this is a gross distortion of a small part of what the military judge said. I was there and heard her read her findings and conclusions which were then made a part of the record of trial and available to the parties. These are the relevant references.

The above is from the discussion of the political question doctrine. The sole use of the word embarrassment is here:

Does the above compute with what World Net Daily or others have said? You decide.