From on the road.
Marine Corps Times has this survey.
Does “drop and give me 20” cut it? Or does he warrant a tougher punishment — maybe standing at parade rest for hours at a time, or spending all night cleaning the barracks? Or would that be considered hazing?
Your client is charged with burglary, theft, and false official statement. You call a good Sailor witness. The witness testifies. Imagine the questions I asked in MJ Summer Camp I, or just as easily that there has been no prior impeachment cross-examination.
Trial counsel: LTC Witness, does a good Sailor commit burglary? No.
Trial counsel: LTC Witness, does a good Sailor commit theft? No.
United States v. Ruiz should sound familiar to most defense counsel – the basic facts that is. An adultery case becomes a rape allegation.
In particular I recommend:
Reporting the Alleged Rape
On the night of the alleged rape, after returning to the barracks, AN P did not report the rape or tell anyone what happened. Id. at 548. Seaman (SN) M testified, contrary to AN P’s testimony, that the next day, a smiling AN P pulled him aside, told him “we did it,” and explained that she and the
appellant had feelings for each other. Id. at 1146. In the next few days, AN P discovered that rumors were spreading about her being in a hotel room with the appellant. Id. at 552, 570, 592. SN C testified that he had previously counseled AN P when she told him she “liked” the appellant, a married man. Id. at 551, 676, 688. When he confronted her with the new rumors and she explained her version of events, he reported it to the command. Id. at 683. AN P testified that she would not report it because she was afraid she would get into trouble or be kicked out of the Navy for being in a hotel room with a married man. Id. at 552-55, 572, 683. AN P testified that about a week after the alleged rape, upon learning she would not get in trouble as long as she was not “cooperating” with the appellant, she reported the incident, when confronted by a SAVI advocate, a chief, and a member of law enforcement. Id. at 572. The manner in which the rape was reported raises further doubt as to why AN P made the accusation.
Here is an interesting Order in United States v. Aguilar where the court has specified an issue.
Whether assault consummated by a battery in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 928, of which the appellant was convicted, is a lesser included offense of the charged Rape by Use of Physical Violence in violation of Article 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920, if the proof does not show the assault is the alleged act of physical violence that compelled sexual intercourse.1
The footnote is:
A constant pet frustration – lack of understanding of how to impeach. Let’s look at this from a common witness situation – the good military character witness.
Witness: Blah, blah, blah.
Witness: In my opinion Private Rumpelstiltskin is a good Soldier.
FourthAmendment.com has this post:
Today is the 26th anniversary of United States v. Leon and the good faith exception.
When I remembered that this morning, I had a flash back to the last CLE I did for prosecutors about 1990 where the speaker after me referred to July 5th as "Independence Day from the Fourth Amendment." There was rousing applause from the audience. This was in Memphis, and it is a telling commentary on the thinking of law enforcement and the Fourth Amendment.
I was going through a couple of old cases looking for some information to use in a current case. Here’s a interesting curative instruction. Coming across this lead me to muse about how strange and how frequently seasoned law enforcement witnesses “forget” that there are certain words or issues they are not supposed to testify about. It’s gotten so bad that I have a standard motion in-limine on HLD. Here’s how one judge dealt with a forgetful law enforcement witness (after he’d agreed with my motion in-limine that the law enforcement witnesses should be instructed on HLD stuff prior to testifying).
The “error” came out in the witness’s first sentence.
MJ: Please be seated. The court will come to order.
In United States v. Morton, ACCA on remand from CAAF found no “dramatic change in the penalty landscape” and affirmed the sentence imposed at trial.
On first review ACCA had set-aside two specifications regarding a falsification of a sick-slip under Article 123, UCMJ. But ACCA then affirmed two specifications thought to be closely related to the dismissed specifications. CAAF dismissed the two specifications and said that:
By dismissing those specifications, our superior court rang the death knell of the “closely-related offense” doctrine. United States v. Morton, 69 M.J. 12, 13 (C.A.A.F. 2010). Also as part of their decision, our superior court returned the record of trial to The Judge Advocate General for remand to this court for sentence reassessment.
| When enlisting or at certain other times:" I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). When commissioning and at certain other times: |
During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:
Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army." The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them."
Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."
You can see more of the history of U.S. military oaths at the U.S. Army Center of Military History.
Now, don’t get discouraged when your being encouraged doesn’t work out. Remember a primary court-room rule: never let them see they’ve hurt you. Not too long ago Judge Vowell was chief in the Army’s First Judicial Circuit. One of her rules of court was that both counsel must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). Essentially she wanted a mini-brief on the experts. Here is what she said on the record in a prior case:
MJ: I’ll tell you that in following – I learned from the judges who work for me each day, and one of them has taught me that – take a look at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, I believe, dealing with expert witnesses. Be prepared to file a notice as to what the witness’s qualifications are, and the basis for the testimony. Basically, this is a preemptive strike at the Daubert/Kumho Tire issues.
CDC: I’m happy to hear that, Judge, because you are the first judge who I’ve ever – in all the times I’ve said, ‘Let’s go to 26,’ I’m happy to comply.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog