Navy Times reports:
Big Navy is trying to work around a recent military court decision striking down a fleet-wide rule forcing sailors to report any drunken-driving or other civilian arrests to their command.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus revised a high-level Navy regulation July 20 in response to the case of a chief who claimed the self-reporting requirement was unconstitutional and violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
I’m aware of one case in the military where the NCIS used GPS tracking (after getting a warrant). Fourthamendment.com recommends:
The D.C. Circuit held on Friday that a warrant is needed for prolonged GPS surveillance, recognizing People v. Weaver from New York and limitingKnotts. [This is a highly important decision. Every criminal and constitutional lawyer needs to read it.] United States v. Maynard, No. 08-3030 (D.C.Cir. August 6, 2010)[.]
Two circuits, relying upon Knotts, have held the use of a GPS tracking device to monitor an individual’s movements in his vehicle over a prolonged period is not a search, United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), but in neither case did the appellant argue that Knotts by its terms does not control whether prolonged surveillance is a search, as Jones argues here. Indeed, in Garcia the appellant explicitly conceded the point. …
On 28 July 2010, ACCA issued a memorandum opinion and decision for the government appeal in United States v. Kirk, ARMY MISC 20100443 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 28 July 2010).
At trial the accused blew providency on an AWOL plea. The prosecution decided they wanted to go forward on the desertion. As part of the case the prosecution wanted to use unwarned statements made to the First Sergeant. The military judge said the statements were coerced, etc., and excluded them. The prosecution appealed. Of course the ACCA ruled in favor of the government that being dragged to the First Sergeant’s office, locked up, and asked a bunch of questions, was not an interrogation and any statements were voluntary. Cases cited are United States v. Duga, 10 M.J. 206 (C.M.A. 1981); United States v. Loukas, 29 M.J. 385 (C.M.A. 1990). Basically it is in the mind of the questioner, not the person being questioned.
Here is the noteworthy piece.
World News Daily has this report:
At the conclusion of the arraignment, Lakin was ordered not to speak with the press and was taken back to Reed under military escort, surprising and disturbing a civilian lawyer who has been working on his case.
“This was completely inappropriate. Col Lakin was brought here and taken away from here as if he was a common criminal. He was prohibited from talking to the press for two minutes; he was prohibited from talking to anybody, even me,” Paul Rolf Jenson said.
I had to go to the bank, pet store, and commissary today so I stopped off to watch the arraignment.
There was a standard R.C.M. 802 conference.
The Army script was followed.
The Boston Globe reports:
The Department of Defense is investigating whether 80 wounded American service members in Iraq were improperly used as subjects in a test of a possible treatment for brain injuries, according to the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General.
In addition to the defense investigation, the US Navy is conducting an inquiry into alleged research misconduct and potential violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to Jennifer Plozai, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s inspector general, in response to questions from the Globe. She declined to spell out the nature of the alleged misconduct.
Lot here today. Catching up after a contested trial at Fort Bragg. I’ll update the Lakin page after today’s “events.”
Kate Wiltrout reports the retrial of Richard Mott at NOB, NorVA.
Almost two years after a Navy judge found Seaman Richard Mott guilty of attempted premeditated murder and sentenced him to 12 years in prison, he got a second chance this week to plead his case before a new judge and a military jury.
Here is a piece from Kitsap Sun:
A doctor who is being expelled from the Navy was charged by Kitsap County prosecutors Thursday with failing to register as a sex offender, according to attorneys familiar with the case.
State law requires people convicted of certain sex crimes to register as sex offenders within three days of arriving in a new state.
Navy Times reports:
A former Navy officer who was serving time for hiring someone to kill his wife was killed in a Kansas military prison a month before he was supposed to be released.
Officials at Fort Leavenworth say 54-year-old former Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Fricke was beaten with a baseball bat by another inmate on July 24. He died Thursday after his family authorized taking him off life support.
There’s something for everyone out of a number of Navy and Coast Guard cases.
Defense Counsel.
When the military judge wrongly announces a sentence which will inure to your client’s benefit, generally you should keep you mouth shut. But, once you get the SJAR, double check the SJAR against the record. See United States v. Spears below. My perception is there is an increase in the number of error in SJAR’s which the trial defense counsel has failed to comment on. I posted on United States v. Newby yesterday. So what you say, he got relief, good for him. The appellant in Spears will now have a lot of trouble dealing with DFAS to get back the unauthorized forfeitures that’s the problem now. Whereas if the issue had been caught at the time of the SJAR it might have been easier to resolve. Yes I know there are many SJA’s out there who would have pressed forward with the erroneous advice anyway.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog