coast guard Tag Archives — Page 2 of 3 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Coast Guard boat crash update

September 4, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

San Diego online reports:

Three San Diego Coast Guard boat crew members will face the military version of a preliminary hearing beginning Tuesday for the Dec. 20 crash that killed an 8-year-old Rancho Peñasquitos boy.

The top charge, involuntary manslaughter, is against Ramos. Howell and Rasmussen are charged with negligent homicide. Coast Guard officials have said it may be the first time in modern memory that any member of the Coast Guard has been charged with manslaughter for actions taken in the course of duty.

Coast Guard certified issues to CAAF

August 20, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Coast Guard has certified the following issues to CAAF.

No. 10-6010/CG. U. S., Appellant v. ANDREW L. DALY, Appellee. CCA 001-62-10. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

WHETHER THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYIING THE STANDARD OF FAIR NOTICE, AS OPPOSED TO MISTAKE OF LAW, IN AFFIRMING THE MILITARY JUDGE’S FINDING THAT, UNDER COAST GUARD REGULATIONS, THE ACCUSED WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN HIS CONDUCT WAS CRIMINAL AND THEREFORE HE COULD NOT BE PUNISHED UNDE ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

Newby decided at CGCCA

July 27, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Newby has been decided and has a reminder for trial defense counsel.

The military judge made a clemency recommendation.

The SJAR failed to note the clemency recommendation.

Coast Guard collision

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

Coast Guard News reports:

Criminal charges ranging from involuntary manslaughter to dereliction of duty have been preferred by the Coast Guard against four boat crewmembers from Coast Guard Station San Diego in connection with a fatal collision between one of the station’s patrol boats and a civilian vessel in San Diego Bay late last year.

The charges were brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and are based on information discovered by the Coast Guard investigators looking into the December 20, 2009, collision that resulted in the death of one child and the injury of other passengers on the civilian boat. Rear Admiral Joseph Castillo, commander of the 11th Coast Guard District, is the convening authority in the case.

CGCCA affirms judge on an Article 62 appeal

June 14, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Daly.

Initially the accused was charged with violating a CG Personnel Manual regulation (about personal relationships) under Article 134, UCMJ. After some discussion of preemption issues (Dwight-san?), the charge was amended to remove the violation of a lawful order language. Then the defense challenged the charge on the basis of failure to state an offense and notice. After litigating the issue the military judge dismissed the charges, and the government appealed.

There is an interesting discussion of the CG Personnel Manual’s categorization of personal relationships into acceptable, unacceptable, and prohibited. Apparently the evidence put the accused’s conduct into the unacceptable. Unacceptable conduct is to be dealt with administratively only.

Post-trial delay

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

The CGCCA has issued a per curiam opinion in United States v. Sapp., a SPCM tried at U.S.C.G. Training Center Yorktown.

Before this court, Appellant has assigned two errors: (1) This court should consider the unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay in determining the sentence that should be approved under Article 66(c); and (2) the promulgating order contains three errors. We grant sentence relief for post-trial delay and otherwise affirm. . . .

Notable delays in post-trial processing are found in the fifty-nine days apparently taken by the military judge to authenticate the record, the seventy-seven days taken after receipt of the authenticated record to produce the SJAR and send it to defense counsel, and the twenty-eight days between Convening Authority action and sending the record to Headquarters. The Memorandum forwarding the record gives no meaningful explanation for these delays, attributing them only to “administrative processing.”

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.

Up periscope

March 31, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

eNews Park Forest reports.

Last August, Travis Bishop refused to serve in Afghanistan. Having filed for Conscientious Objector (CO) status, Bishop, based at Fort Hood, Texas, in the US Army’s 57th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, was court-martialed and sentenced to 12 months in a military brig. He was released from the brig today.

Bishop served his time in Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Lewis, Washington. This military brig is notorious for being a particularly difficult jail to serve time.

Coast Guard CCA sets-aside United States v. Bond

March 22, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Bond.

Before this court, Appellant has assigned the following errors:
I.
The military judge erred when he denied the defense motion to dismiss Charges I and III for prior jeopardy.
II.
An unsuspended bad-conduct discharge is an inappropriately severe punishment for the crimes of which Appellant was convicted.
III.
Appellant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were denied when he was prohibited from recording the Article 32 investigation, and by the subsequent denial of his motion for a new Article 32 investigation.

We exercise our Article 66, UCMJ authority and set aside the findings and sentence.

Coastie O-6 headed to trial

March 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Navy Times reports that:

A former sector commander in Alaska is facing a general court-marital for charges of adultery, fraternization and other sexual improprieties.

Capt. Herbert “Mark” Hamilton III has been charged with 30 counts, including: failing to follow orders; lying to investigators; committing adultery with enlisted personnel; sending and receiving “sexual and amorous text messages” using a government cell phone; photographing sexual acts; downloading and storing sexually explicit material on his government-issued laptop; and making an official phone call “while engaged in sexual activity,” according to charging documents.