Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
Note the name of his cat.
Have Briefcase (and
Internet), Will TravelFor a Free Consultation
A district court judge who thinks the no deployment lawsuits are frivolous.
Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254 (D.C. 3 May 2009).
Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge
BREAKING NEWS — I don’t want to go, Obama the President can’t make me – OK.
Dianna Cotter, Breaking: Major has orders revoked, by questioning Obama’s legitimacy, Examiner.com, 14 July 2009.
This story has been slipping under the Main Stream Media Radar for some time now.
U.S. Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook Filed a restraining order asking for legitimate confirmation that his Commander in Chief was legitimately in Office, giving him his orders to Deploy to Afghanistan with his unit.
MAJ Cook: Obama not president, you don’t have to deploy?
You’ll have to excuse my verbal irony in the title of this comment. But according to a new release as of 2153, 14 July 2009, the answer is that no you don’t have to deploy, you get your orders cancelled apparently.
Soldier Refuses to Deploy; Says Obama Isn’t President
Tuesday July 14, 2009
Prosecution “overview” witnesses.
I have commented on this issue previously: More on groundwork. Now the 1st Circuit seems to want to get tougher with prosecutors.
First Circuit Once Again Criticizes The Use Of Law Enforcement “Overview” Testimony.
After prior admonitions, First Circuit warns prosecutor that failure to avoid the problems in using an “overview” witness may result in possible sanctions or disciplinary action, in United States v. Flores-De-Jesus, _ F.3d _ (1st Cir. June 18, 2009) (No. 06-267, 06-2670, 06-2671) (Torruella, Lipez, and DiClerico (DJ)).
/tip: FederalEvidenceBlog.
New Military Lawyer on web.
Don’t Panic! Rehearings and DuBays Are Not the End of the World
Witness’s legal conclusions.
This case is relevant to both the prosecution and the defense. And not just on cross-examination, but also on direct.
On defense claim that the defendant did not affirmatively consent but only “acquiesced” to the search, defense counsel’s use of the word “acquiesced” in cross-examining the officer was inadmissible under FRE 701 for attempting to force the officer to adopt a legal conclusion, in United States v. Canipe, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. June 30, 2009) (No. 08-5534).
/tip FederalEvidenceBlog.
Character of a victim and self-defense.
Prof. Colin Miller has this very useful post on the character of a "victim" when a defense of self-defense is raised.
In Fish, Harold Arthur Fish appealed from his conviction for second degree murder, claiming, inter alia,
News of the weird
Lawyer seeks to prevent opponent from wearing worn shoes: The economy may be in the dumps, but lawyers shouldn’t skimp on their pumps, according to this story in the Palm Beach Post. (H/T The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog). Florida defense lawyer Michael Robb found himself the target of a motion asking the court to prevent him from wearing shoes with holes in the soles, which were allegedly part of his trial strategy. Robb’s retort? "I’ve been practicing law for 21 years, and Mr. Bone thinks he’s finally cracked the key to my success? Gotta be the shoes. Like Michael Jordan.
Law.com/Legalblogwatch.
Paying for experience
United States v. Wiechmann, __ M.J. ___, No. 09-0082/MC (C.A.A.F. July 6, 2009) has been decided. There was error, but found to be constitutionally harmless.
After a captain with very little defense experience was detailed to represent a retirement-eligible lieutenant colonel, the Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps detailed a highly respected Marine Reservist LtCol as a defense counsel in the case. From this point on the convening authority and the first military judge on the case refused to recognize or deal with LtCol Shelburne as a detailed counsel. A second judge did accept the detailing. The issue was money, who pays for the LtCol.