NMCCA has an unpublished opinion on line in United States v. Thomas. The case is interesting partly because it is an recitation of some facts vice news reported “facts.”
I find footnote 3 to the decision of some interest:
The Second Circuit has found that removal of any person who has previously served on a jury that ultimately acquitted an accused is an appropriate reason, regardless of race, for future challenge. United States v. Douglas, 525 F.3d 225 (2nd Cir. 2008).
By Seth Robson, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, August 15, 2009
GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — The life sentence of a U.S. soldier convicted for the execution-style killings of four bound and blindfolded Iraqi detainees has been reduced to 40 years, military officials announced Friday.
. . .
by Kenneth Anderson
Here is the official call for papers for the 2010 ASIL Lieber Society Military Prize essay. To enter a paper, you do not have to be a member of ASIL, but you do have to be a member of your “nation’s regular or reserve armed forces.” This particular essay contest, in other words, is for military personnel.
Some of you will recognize Lieber, and not just because one of his grandson’s has a Reserve Center down the road from me named after him.
The ACCA has overturned the conviction of Private Simmons because the judge erroneously failed to dismiss the charges for an Article 10, UCMJ, violation. Here is the link to the unpublished opinion, Judge Ham writing for the court.
United States v. Simmons, ARMY 20070486 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 12 August 2009).
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, in accordance with his pleas, of absence without leave, failure to go to his appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, and disorderly conduct, in violation of Articles 86, 92, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 886, 892, and 934 [hereinafter UCMJ].[1]
“The Army has reached it’s end strength numbers and believes it can easily reach the additional 22,000 SECDEF authorized last month. It is reinstating its Qualitative Management Program (QMP) that screens E-6 to E-9 records for any behavioral or legal problems and then separates those Soldiers.”
Keep in mind the new policy that those in paygrade E-6 and above are to report civilian convictions to their command. Failure to do so will be an orders violation. This link should take you to the DoD policy memorandum.
I constantly am asked by former military personnel if they can re-enlist. In almost all instances they have a GD or OTH, and at least an RE-3. The QMP is just another reason why a negative discharge will be harder to overcome.
Here is an interesting case from FederalEvidence blog on how the 8th Circuit deals with the scratchy issue of a poor audio recording.
By Travis J. Tritten and Hana Kusumoto, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, August 14, 2009
The U.S. military in Japan has been more aggressive in charging and tracking deserters since a fugitive sailor stabbed a taxi driver to death last year, military legal staff and investigators said.
Since then, a dozen servicemembers have been charged with desertion and five remain at large, according to figures supplied by U.S. Forces Japan, Japanese police and local bases.
Sailors will face increased random drug tests as a result of recent changes to the Navy’s drug prevention program. The changes remove the requirement for an annual unit sweep. However, they mandate a minimum of four tests per month that must include at least 15 percent of a command’s members.
How many times do we hear it from clients, especially appellate clients — “I got my discharge, it’s an honorable, what do I do?”
ACCA has decided that issue for Estrada, in United States v. Estrada.
Appellant argues her receipt of an administratively-issued honorable discharge prior to the convening authority’s approval of her adjudged bad-conduct discharge remits the punitive discharge and renders it a nullity. After considering the assignment of error and the applicable service regulations, we specified the following related assignment of error:
Professor Colin Miller has a comment today on his blog about United States v. Matthews, 68 M.J. 29 (C.A.A.F 2009) He illustrates that Mil. R. Evid. 606 mirrors the federal rule but has the additional exception for “command influence” in the Members deliberation room.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
