Court-Martial Trial Practice

I have argued in a number of cases that the Service RPR provides greater obligations on TC beyond Brady-plus that requires more timely and broader obligations.

http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/split-over-prosecutors-ethical-disclosure-duties-intensifies#When:13:30:00Z

No. 19-0376/MC. U.S. v. R. Bronson Watkins. CCA 201700246. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues:

1. A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS WHERE THE INTERESTS OF AN ATTORNEY AND DEFENDANT DIVERGE ON A MATERIAL FACTUAL OR LEGAL ISSUE, OR A COURSE OF ACTION. THREATS BY REGIONAL TRIAL COUNSEL AND A REGIONAL TRIAL INVESTIGATOR TOWARDS CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN CIVILIAN COUNSEL AND APPELLANT. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR IN DENYING CIVILIAN COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW?
2. THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN ACCUSED THE RIGHT TO RETAIN COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOOSING. BEFORE TRIAL, AND AFTER HIS CIVILIAN COUNSEL MOVED TO WITHDRAW—CITING A PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST—APPELLANT ASKED TO RELEASE HIS CIVILIAN COUNSEL AND HIRE A DIFFERENT COUNSEL. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY DENYING THIS REQUEST?

https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/Article%20146a%20Reports%20-%20FY18%20-%20All%20Services.pdf?ver=2019-09-19-163824-157

22 September is the anniversary of Nathan Hale being executed for spying against the British forces.

In New York City on September 22, 1776, Nathan Hale, a Connecticut schoolteacher and captain in the Continental Army, is executed by the British for spying.

A graduate of Yale University, Hale joined a Connecticut regiment in 1775 and served in the successful siege of British-occupied Boston. On September 10, 1776, he volunteered to cross behind British lines on Long Island to spy on the British in preparation for the Battle of Harlem Heights.

https://constitution.congress.gov/

The Center for Military Readiness has this “report.”

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, nominated to become Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has become the face of injustice done to military personnel who encounter unproved allegations of sexual assault.  Accusations that cannot be substantiated are unjust and often career-ending, but they are not unusual.  Annual Pentagon reports indicate that they happen all the time.

According to figures published in annual reports of the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office (SAPRO) since FY 2009, almost one-in-four completed cases involving sexual assault have been deemed “unsubstantiated” due to “insufficient evidence” or “allegations unfounded.”

Corteen & Stelle, A Criminal Injustice System? Sex Offender Suspects and Defendants. 39 LIVERPOOL L. REV. 265 (2018).

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to open up a discussion regarding the potential shift from the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt regarding those suspected of or charged with sexual offending. It is acknowledged that further investigation is needed and it is hoped that this discussion is one of many. The crux of this paper therefore is that sex offender suspects and defendants potentially find themselves in a criminal injustice system. Whilst the focus is predominantly on ‘victims’ (usually female) and people suspected or charged with sexual offending (usually male) within the criminal justice system in England and Wales the concerns articulated here are not confined to this context. For example such concerns are echoed in relation to the potential injustices occurring on American campuses. This demonstrates that this is a domestic and international situation and a situation that extends beyond the criminal justice system. We argue that what is occurring at home and abroad has to be contextualised with regard to public, media and social attitudes and approaches to ‘victims’, suspects, defendants, sex, sexual consent, sexual