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:
I’ve posted before about issues with forensic testing and police controlled laboratories (including military drug testing laboratories). Here is an article from my old crim law professor, a former Army JA. You’ve also heard me frequently talk about confirmatory bias in regard to police investigations and other investigations.
Paul C. Gianelli, Independent Crime Laboratories: The Problem of Motivational and Cognitive Bias, to be published in the Utah Law Review.
One of the most controversial recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science — Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: The Path Forward — concerns the removal of crime laboratories from the administrative control of law enforcement agencies. For decades scholars have commented on the “inbred bias of crime laboratories affiliated with law enforcement agencies.” Some commentators have proposed independent laboratories as the remedy for this problem, and in 2002, the Illinois Governor’s Commission on Capital Punishment proposed the establishment of an independent state crime laboratory. This essay documents the problems that triggered the NAS Report’s recommendation. It also examines the counter arguments as well as alternative approaches, including additional measures that should protect forensic analyses from improper influence.
Military.com reports that:
A four-star general will testify at a pretrial hearing in the biggest criminal case against U.S. troops to arise from the Iraq war, a Marine Corps spokesman said Thursday.
Gen. James Mattis is scheduled to address a military judge Monday on a defense motion to dismiss charges against Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich on grounds of undue command influence, said the spokesman, Lt. Col. David Griesmer.
WOAI.com reports:
Hasan’s lawyer claims the U.S. Army is withholding key information he needs to defend Hasan.
Attorney John Galligan said he has been waiting months for classified material needed to help his client. He said he has been given limited access to criminal investigation files.
Military.com reports:
Last summer, more than a year after completing a seemingly successful tour as commanding officer of the amphibious assault ship Wasp, Capt. Michael Hawley was removed from his post as the head of a Norfolk-based training group. . . .
But a report from the Naval Inspector General’s office outlines six personal or professional violations, including pressuring deployed Wasp Sailors to buy suits and guns from visiting merchants and pilfering a set of salt-and-pepper shakers while attending a dinner hosted by the Canadian navy.
United States v. Clayton. Another special exception, in of course, a CP case.
The dissent says it all.
RYAN, J., with whom ERDMANN, J., joins (dissenting):
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog