A former Army soldier who claims he put child pornography on his cell phone to help law enforcement catch those who produced the images was sentenced Monday to 18 months in federal prison.
www.azstarnet.com
According to an alarming new report, 75 percent of young people ages 17 to 24 are unable to enlist in the military because they fail to graduate high school, have a criminal record, or are physically unfit. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and some of America’s top retired military brass will hold a news conference at the National Press Club Thursday to call for immediate action to address this national security threat.
See more at Military Reporters & Editors or MissionReadiness.org.
If you are following the military officer involvement in the “birther” challenges to President Obama, you will be aware of the status of the litigation. But what about this:
Army recommends ‘birther’ for promotion
Army ‘birther’ Major Stefan F. Cook gets a job at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
The Military Reporters & Editors website is pointing to a release by Missionreadiness.org, which says:
According to an alarming new report, 75 percent of young people ages 17 to 24 are unable to enlist in the military because they fail to graduate high school, have a criminal record, or are physically unfit. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and some of America’s top retired military brass will hold a news conference at the National Press Club Thursday to call for immediate action to address this national security threat.
CAAFLog is reporting that CAAF has granted the following issue in United States v. Blazier.
Whether, in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Appellant was denied meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses in violation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the military judge did not compel the government to produce essential Brooks Law officials who handled Appellant’s urine samples and instead allowed the expert toxicologist to testify to non-admissible hearsay. See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009).
I’m a happy man. I have been raising this issue in every urinalysis case I’ve done since Crawford. Unfortunately I’ve not been able to convince too many others to raise it. Finally CAAF is going to take a look at the issue. May well lose, but at least there’s a chance. You can’t win unless you raise the issue at trial.
A couple of new opinions from NMCCA address issues related to CP prosecutions.
United States v. Jones, III, has this issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HE PLED GUILTY AND WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF THAT DENIAL, APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS PROVIDENT.
Here’s a case discussing access to mental health records of a primary prosecution witness.
This was a due process and confrontation case. Here, as is not an infrequent issue, the prosecution succeeded in having damaging information about their witness excluded. The prosecution then went on to give an “incomplete and inaccurate picture” of their witness. The prosecution did this knowing full well that they were presenting a misleading picture. (Why that’s not prosecutorial misconduct I have no idea. [N.1])
The majority held that the Confrontation Clause was violated by the restrictions on cross-examination about the informant’s mental health and use of prescription medication. The jury was deprived of evidence concerning his ability to perceive and recall what transpired and the informant’s credibility. On this point, the majority noted:
A new Air Force Law Review is online, as well as a new The Reporter.
MILITARY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT, by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Dukes, Jr., USAFR & Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Rees, Jr., USAFR.
AN OPEN LETTER TO DEFENSE COUNSEL: Protecting Yourself Against IAC Claims, by Captain Ryan N. Hoback.
Jansen. A sentence comparison case among co-accused’s. The case is of note to trial practitioners and SJA’s for it’s “discussion” of what is or isn’t a “closely related” case, and whether sentence disparity should be addressed with the CA post-trial.
Principi. A CP case where the prosecution charged for contingencies of proof, the contingency wasn’t resolved at trial, but the sentence was a decent one so no real prejudice.
Redeaux. I think this case should be looked at as a pleadings specificity and notice case, and IAC of TC/SJA/Art. 32 IO. Poor pleading practice lead to the accused getting a benefit, that he probably wasn’t entitled to. The MJ raised issues with the pleadings. The TC folded and apparently didn’t make an argument that the pleadings, while inartful, were sufficient. Because the TC folded the accused got the benefit of renegotiating his PTA for a lower sentence cap.
Here is the footnote that should be of concern to all defense counsel, from United States v. Regaladozambrano, just decided.
While the Court has declined to brand Capt [O’s] post-trial legal representation of the appellant as deficient, that restraint is exercised only due to the lack of any evidence of prejudice in the record before us.
What’s the court’s concern?
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
