Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Up periscope

April 9, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

1. What ever happened to the Coast Guard O-6 in Alaska pending GCM for a host of offenses.

The former Coast Guard Sector Anchorage Commander was awarded the maximum allowable punishment at an Admiral’s Mast Friday and will retire on July 1 in the grade of lieutenant with a general discharge in lieu of trial by a general court-martial.

Capt. Herbert M. Hamilton, III, was relieved of command in May 2009. An investigation conducted by the Coast Guard Investigative Service revealed that Hamilton had inappropriate relationships with several women, including officer and enlisted Coast Guard members, and civilians, over a period of more than 13 years. Hamilton also was charged with misusing government computers and cell phones; making false official statements; and soliciting an enlisted member to destroy evidence. His retirement as a lieutenant in lieu of trial by a general court-martial is the result of a pretrial agreement and Hamilton’s unsatisfactory service in the grades of captain, commander, and lieutenant commander.

Hennis convicted in 2hrs 45 minutes of deliberations

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

FayObserver reports:

A military jury has found Army Master Sgt. Timothy B. Hennis guilty of three specifications of pre-meditated murder.

The members of the court-martial panel returned with their verdict about 10:35 a.m. They had deliberated for two hours and 45 minutes over Wednesday and today

Up periscope

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

FayObserver reports:

An 82nd Airborne soldier suspected of sexually assaulting seven women in Fort Bragg, Fayetteville and Hoke County will face a military judge Thursday.

Spec. Aaron Michael Pernell, 22, has been held in military custody at Fort Bragg since his Feb. 1 arrest. He is suspected in two break-ins and a sexual assault in December and a September break-in, all of which occurred on post.

Up periscope

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

Gazette.com reports that:

An Army prosecutor Tuesday opened the trial of an Iraq war veteran by accusing him of the “ultimate betrayal” — raping a comrade’s wife.

Spc. Philip C. Vermeiren, 28, is accused of assaulting the woman early Oct. 31 during an alcohol-fueled party at the Fort Carson apartment she shared with her husband.

Forensic science?

April 5, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

This is likely a duplicate post, but it’s worth it anyway. Here again is a piece from my old Crim. Law prof about forensics.

Paul C. Giannelli (Case Western Reserve University School of Law) (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming, Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-6) has posted Daubert and Forensic Science: The Pitfalls of Law Enforcement Control of Scientific Research on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a landmark report on forensic science: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The Report represents one of the most important developments in forensic science since the establishment of the crime laboratory in the 1920s. Within months, Justice Scalia cited the report in Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, noting that “[s]erious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials” and “[f]forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.” After two years of studying fingerprints, handwriting, ballistics, and other common forensic techniques, the Academy concluded that “some forensic science disciplines are supported by little rigorous systematic research to validate the discipline’s basic premises and techniques.” Indeed, “only nuclear DNA analysis has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between an evidentiary sample and a specific individual or source.”

SEAL case update

April 3, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Petty Officer Keefe’s trial is scheduled to commence in Iraq on 17 April 2010.

Here is an excellent review, by Dwight “ML” Sullivan at CAAFLog on the political posturing, pseudo-lawyering, and plain gaffs about these cases.

First SEAL prosecution imminent

Hasan update 5

April 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

TDTNews reports that:

Major Hasan may not have been transferred from hospital yesterday as thought was planned.

Mr. Galligan’s chief complaint is a lack of a mitigation specialist assigned to the defense prior to the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing.

Google goes ga ga

April 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

With all of the hype about Google in China it appears they have decided to change their logo to avoid Chinese intelligence agents.

Google’s explanation is rather odd.

Early last month the mayor of Topeka, Kansas stunned the world by announcing that his city was changing its name to Google. We’ve been wondering ever since how best to honor that moving gesture. Today we are pleased to announce that as of 1AM (Central Daylight Time) April 1st, Google has officially changed our name to Topeka.

Hasan update 4

April 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Fox11.com reports that:

Major Hasan is on his way from hospital to Belton jail where he will be housed at an approximate cost of $206K.

He is wheelchair bound – question, is he a flight risk?

Search & seizure

April 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here’s a case from New Jersey of some interest, Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 N.J. LEXIS 241 (March 30, 2010).

[W]e find that Stengart had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails she exchanged with her attorney on Loving Care’s laptop.

Stengart plainly took steps to protect the privacy of those e-mails and shield them from her employer. She used a personal, password-protected e-mail account instead of her company e-mail address and did not save the account’s password on her computer. In other words, she had a subjective expectation of privacy in messages to and from her lawyer discussing the subject of a future lawsuit.