Among others, the Virgin Islands Daily News reports that:
U.S. Army officials have charged a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserves, a St. Croix native, with the premeditated murder of his supervisor, who was shot multiple times last week at Fort Gillem in Georgia, where the two men were stationed. . . .
A pretrial confinement hearing held Friday determined Valmont will remain in pretrial confinement.
At least 11 of the 17 members of the Afghan military who went AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas and are considered deserters by their nation have turned up in the exact place you’d expect to find them in the year 2010.
They’re on Facebook. . . .
CAAF has decided United States v. Graner. Graner loses.
We granted review in this Abu Ghraib case to determine whether the military judge abused his discretion in (1) refusing to compel the Government to produce certain memoranda requested by the defense; (2) excluding the testimony of, and an e-mail
from, Major Ponce; and (3) limiting the testimony of a defense expert witness. We hold that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in any of these decisions and affirm the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA).
Army Board for Correction of Military Records, here we come. Actually, there’s probably no requirement to start there I suppose.
The OCWeekly reports that:
Taitz has also been pining for recently sacked U.S. general Stanley McChrystal to give her a call. She says that McCrystal is a "perfect plaintiff to expose Obama’s lack of legitimacy," and that he "needs to file a legal action, seeking compensations, as he was pressured to resign by one who is illegally occupying the position of the commander in chief."
CAAF has decided United States v. Lloyd, in a 3-2 decision. The majority determined that the defense had not sufficiently shown the need for a blood spatter expert. Chief Judge Effron writing for himself and Judge Baker dissented. I see this as a fact based decision and not stating any new law.
Professor Friedman alerts that two amicus briefs have been filed. The link to his brief does not work, but the one to NACDL does. As a reminder the QP is:
Whether statements to investigating police officers accusing someone of a crime and describing the offense after it has been completed fall outside the scope of the Confrontation Clause merely because the suspect remains at large or the declarant has been injure
Here is a posting on Above the Law about a Marine officer attending law school, and his Marine Corps future. It’s not clear if he’s there as a LEP’er. But I suspect he’s on his way to being a leper in a number of communities.
It’s a Scarlet Letter tale for the digital age. A Georgetown law student’s life has completely unraveled. His way of dealing with losing his wife, his mistress, his supposed baby, his military assignment, and good standing at Georgetown Law School? A public confession on Facebook.
Army Times reports that:
Three officers given letters of reprimand for the deadly July 13, 2008, battle in Wanat, Afghanistan, have been exonerated and the letters withdrawn, the Army announced June 23.
Gen. Charles Campbell, who recently relinquished command of Forces Command and is preparing to retire, “withdrew, cancelled and annulled” the adverse administrative actions after reviewing findings from a Central Command-directed investigation and hearing from the three officers themselves.
CAAF’s journal for 22 June 2010 notes:
No. 10-0468/AR. U.S. v. Sonya M. WATSON. CCA 20080175. Review granted on the following issue:
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.
Schaefer v. McHugh is the interesting case of an Army JAG who finagled a medical discharge, but then the orders were revoked, and upon return to the fold he received a GOMR. It’s not nice to have the Army pay for your law school education and then try to sneak out the back-door.
Malcolm Schaefer pointed to his bad knees as a reason to get out of his Army service. But Schaefer was an Army lawyer. Bad knees typically do not preclude service as a lawyer. The Army therefore rejected Schaefer’s request for discharge. But because of an administrative foul-up, Schaefer was able to obtain papers showing his legal discharge. Shortly afterwards, the Army informed Schaefer that he had to return to service. Schaefer did so, and the Army then took disciplinary action against him for his apparent shenanigans. In this litigation, Schaefer argues, in essence, that he beat the system by obtaining papers showing his discharge and that subsequent Army disciplinary actions against him were invalid. The District Court rejected Schaefer’s challenge, granting summary judgment to the Secretary of the Army. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
