Articles Tagged with court-martial

Professor Colin Miller has posted an excellent piece about the current status of expert testimony about the inaccuracies of eyewitness identification.

I have done several posts on this blog (here, here, here, here, here, and here) about the inaccuracy of regular and cross-racial eyewitness identifications and whether expert testimony about this inaccuracy should be allowed. In a recent post, I noted that "My general sense is that most courts allow such expert testimony although a decent number of courts, such as the Eleventh Circuit and Minnesota courts, preclude it." That post addressed a recent opinion in which the Supreme Court of Utah reversed past precedent and allow for the admission of expert testimony on the inaccuracy of eyewitness identifications. This post addresses a recent opinion, State v. Young, 2010 WL 1286933 (La. 2010), in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana adhered to prior precedent and refused to allow for the admission of expert testimony on the inaccuracy of eyewitness identifications.

FayObserver reports that:

An Army major who allegedly told another soldier that his fellow jury members in an October court-martial acted improperly and with an agenda testified Thursday that he never made such an allegation.

Pvt. Justin A. Boyle – a sergeant before having his rank stripped – was convicted in October of involuntary manslaughter and conspiracy for his role in the death of Pfc. Luke Brown.

NMCCA has decided United States v. Oglesby.

The issue was prosecution sentencing evidence of other acts toward the victim which had not been charged.  Appellant alleged that the military judge failed to conduct a proper 1001 and Mil. R. Evid. 403 balancing test.  NMCCA disagreed.

NMCCA found that the military judge properly evaluated the evidence as to its admissibility, including a 403 balancing.  The court further found that the military judge correctly gave a limiting instruction to the members on how they could use the additional evidence.

FayObserver notes the issue yesterday where the members wanted answers about parole should he be sentenced to life.  I found this piece odd.

The jury left the courthouse at Fort Bragg about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday evening without a decision on a sentence for Hennis: life in prison or the death penalty. A death sentence requires a unanimous vote of all 14 jurors; a life sentence requires agreement from at least 11 of the jurors.

Hennis was convicted of premeditated murder, so it’s one or the other life or death.  The paper seems to have picked up on the three-quarters vote needed for a sentence in excess of 10 years.  In this case he’s already going to get life, the question is whether all 14 members will vote to terminate it.

There are good reasons that the military should be apolitical in public, and as political as it wants in the voting booth.

Politics Daily reports:

The Army will court martial a lieutenant colonel who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he won’t accept orders from President Obama, whom he considers unqualified to be commander in chief, military officials said Wednesday.

Military.com reports that:

They are sold under catchy names like Sage of the Seers, Magic Mint and Thang, designer drugs that can be legally sold at shops and online in most cases.

But due to their increasing use by Sailors and the effects they cause, these designer drugs have been added to the U.S. Navy’s zero-tolerance drug-abuse policy.

GiveUsLiberty blog has this piece.

Hopefully Mr. Apuzzo has  a similar depth of knowledge about the UCMJ, R.C.M., and Military Rules of Evidence, to his knowledge of constitutional law.  Or will he dump that on learned military counsel, that’s another part of Article 38, UCMJ.

This comment evidences a lack of understanding of chain of command issues and the Rules of who does what and how it is done.

CAAFLog has pointed to this CentralTexasNow.com report.

Bell County Jail, it’s where the man charged with the Fort Hood massacre, Nidal Hasan, is now being held. Inside the jail infirmary, under 24 hour surveillance, and his lawyer doesn’t like it.

"He is, in short, being punished. In violation I believe of article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And it’s deliberate, it’s conscious and it’s intentional," John Galligan says.

Remember that Hennis’s crimes occured before the change which permitted LWOP.  So, Army Times reports:

Court recessed at 5:40 p.m. after the jury deliberated for more than two hours and also waited for the answer to three questions, including whether Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis would be eligible for parole if given a life sentence.

Judge Col. Patrick Parrish told the jury that "life means life" and reminded jurors of his instructions to impose a sentence they view as fair.

Contact Information