Articles Tagged with court-martial

FoxNews reports that:

Hall, a soldier out of Fort Stewart in Georgia, recorded a rap song last July called “Stop Loss” after he was notified that his military contract was being extended. Army soldiers who are “stop-lossed” must complete additional tours of duty.

In his song, Hall raps about walking up to soldiers and “surprising them all” with 30 rounds set to a “three-round burst.” Another lyric says: “Still against the war / I grab my M4/ Spray and watch all the bodies hit the floor/ I bet you’ll never stop-loss nobody no more.”

Thanks to OpinoJuris for pointing us to the 11th Circuit decision in United States v. Frank.  You will recollect that CAAF has found that the CP related statutes don’t apply overseas.  Here is part of the OJ summary.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the conviction finding that (1) Miranda warnings were unnecessary; (2) the statute applied extraterritorially; and (3) the “purchase” of a child may occur through payment directly to the child, rather than a third party.

The Court found that generally, “statements obtained by foreign officers conducting interrogations in their own nations have been held admissible despite a failure to give Miranda warnings to the accused.” The reasoning behind this rule is that the exclusion of evidence by an American court has little to no deterrent effect on foreign police practices. That is, our “Constitution cannot compel such specific, affirmative action by foreign sovereigns.” Moreover, the joint venture exception does not apply because American officials did not know of Frank’s presence in Cambodia until after he was arrested and did not participate in Frank’s detention or interrogation.

United States v. Blazier.  Here are the relevant portions of the opinion written by Judge Ryan for the moment.

This case presents the question whether the admission of drug testing reports” over defense objection violated Appellant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.  The antecedent question, whether certain admitted evidence was testimonial, we answer affirmatively, and contrary to the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), United States v. Blazier, 68 M.J. 544 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2008).

Having resolved the threshold question, and given the ubiquity of drug testing within the
military, we conclude that additional briefing is warranted prior to final disposition of the case.

North County Times reports:

That the military judge “ruled prosecutors must show beyond a reasonable doubt that unlawful command influence hasn’t tainted the manslaughter case against a Camp Pendleton Marine accused of taking part in the 2005 slayings of 24 Iraqi civilians.”  This means the defense was successful so far in showing sufficient evidence to shift the burden to the prosecution to prove no UCI.

Marine Corps Times reports:

Eight Marines were charged in the biggest criminal case against U.S. troops to arise from the Iraq war. Six have had charges dismissed, and one was acquitted.

Whether the only remaining and perhaps highest-profile defendant stands trial may hinge on what happens this week in a military courtroom.

United States v. Ferguson

We granted review to determine whether the military judge erred by accepting Appellant’s guilty plea to indecent exposure.  We hold that there is no substantial basis in law or fact to
question Appellant’s plea to indecent exposure and affirm the judgment of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA).

The indecent exposure and other acts happened over the internet, primarily via webcam.

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.

MySAnews reports that:

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged in November’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead and 32 others wounded, will be moved from San Antonio to a county jail near the military post.

Bell County Sheriff Dan Smith issued a statement Monday, saying Bell County commissioners court formalized a contract with Fort Hood officials in preparation for receiving Hasan at the jail in Belton.

Rapid City Journal reports that:

Government prosecutors dismissed sexual assault charges against an Ellsworth Air Force Base airman when the alleged victim did not appear at an Article 32 hearing for Sr. Airman Vinicus Santana on Tuesday.

Santana is scheduled for a court martial on April 20 for a shooting incident in Rapid City that injured another airman.

Thanks to Fourthamendement.com, here is an article about Arizona v. Gant.

Arizona v. Gant: Does it Matter? by Barbara E. Armacost of the University of Virginia School of Law in 2009 S.Ct. Rev. __ (2010).

And from the abstract:

Contact Information