court-martial Tag Archives — Page 36 of 60 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

New ACCA opinion

March 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

ACCA has issued an opinion in United States v. Watson, another administrative discharge issued pending appeal, this time an officer.

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant,
pursuant to her pleas, of larceny of government property and fraud against the
United States (two specifications), in violation of Articles 121 and 132, Uniform
Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 921 and 932 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The
military judge sentenced appellant to a dismissal, confinement for seven months, a
fine of $135,000, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Prior to convening authority action, appellant, a reserve officer, was released
from active duty (REFRAD). While pending appellate review, appellant received
orders placing her in an inactive status. After convening authority action approving
her dismissal, she received discharge orders and an honorable discharge certificate.

Coastie O-6 headed to trial

March 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Navy Times reports that:

A former sector commander in Alaska is facing a general court-marital for charges of adultery, fraternization and other sexual improprieties.

Capt. Herbert “Mark” Hamilton III has been charged with 30 counts, including: failing to follow orders; lying to investigators; committing adultery with enlisted personnel; sending and receiving “sexual and amorous text messages” using a government cell phone; photographing sexual acts; downloading and storing sexually explicit material on his government-issued laptop; and making an official phone call “while engaged in sexual activity,” according to charging documents.

Hennis update

March 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Fay Observer reports that:

U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle on Wednesday dismissed an effort by Army Master Sgt. Timothy Bailey Hennis to stop his court-martial for a 1985 triple homicide near Fort Bragg.

A jury has been seated in the court-martial. Opening statements and testimony are scheduled to begin today.

Hennis update

March 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The FayObserver.com is reporting that a members panel has been selected and that trial on the merits will begin Wednesday, 17 March 2009.

Up periscope-1×0310

March 13, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a piece about guilty pleas in military death penalty cases from FDL.

The New York Times is reporting that the Obama Administration is considering changing the law to permit prisoners at Gitmo to plead guilty to death penalty cases without need for a trial. This is apparently a reaction to the stated desires of five Gitmo prisoners to become "martyrs."

WHIO reports that: the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing “in response to allegations that the former top enlisted man at the base sexually harassed 10 female co-workers. [will be held 26 May].”

Update on SEAL cases

March 13, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Kate Wiltrout in the Virginia Pilot reports that the military judge has directed five defense witnesses be given immunity or the proceedings will be abated.

The case against a Navy SEAL accused of not protecting an alleged Iraqi terrorist took a major turn Friday when a military judge ordered that five key defense witnesses be granted immunity to testify on his behalf. If not, he warned, the case will be halted.

Here is an interesting comment on CAAFLogs post on this case.

Major Hasan update

March 13, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Daily Caller reports that:

Following a two-week absence, the Fort Hood attorney was back at it Friday despite a gag order, blogging on the perceived injustices suffered by his defense team in defending Major Nidal Hasan, the man charged in the shooting deaths of 13 people.

As previously reported by The Daily Caller, John P. Galligan, Hasan’s civilian defense attorney, made waves in the legal community when he launched the high-profile blog to highlight his obstacles in defending the case. The blog was silent for nearly two weeks after the initial controversy erupted, but he’s back, saying: “My blog will continue to highlight how my client is being unfairly treated.”

Collateral consequences sex offender registration

March 11, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

In this case we decide whether Joshua Williams, who pleaded guilty to carnal knowledge of a minor in violation of military law while serving in the Navy, is exempt from registration as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code sections 290, subdivision (c) and 290.005 (undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code), and therefore entitled to have his name removed from the Justice Department’s sex offender registry. We conclude that based on Williams’s plea, he was denied equal protection of the law in that persons convicted in California of the equivalent offense of unlawful sexual intercourse in violation of section 261.5 are not required to register. (People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, 1206-1207 (Hofsheier).) In reaching this conclusion, we focus on the offense of which Williams was convicted, not a hypothetical offense of which he could have been convicted based on the conduct underlying the charge. (People v. Ranscht (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1374-1375 (Ranscht).) Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying Williams’s request to have his name removed from the registry.

Williams v. Superior Court of San Diego, D055457 (10 March 2010).

Hennis-DP-update

March 11, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

FayObserver reports that:

A 12th juror was seated in the court-martial of Army Master Sgt. Timothy B. Hennis at Fort Bragg this morning, but the total was quickly knocked back to 10.

Attorneys on both sides exercised their right to peremptorily challenge one juror each.

Discovery-innocent ingestion

March 11, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

R.C.M. 701(b)(2) sets out the requirement for defense disclosure if there will be an innocent ingestion defense.

Assuming the accused is the only witness who may testify to an innocent ingestion, must the defense disclose that under the rule. My answer is no. To force a disclosure prior to testimony violates the accused’s right to silence at trial and under Article 31, UCMJ. The President has addressed this issue in R.C.M. 701(g)(3)(D), and IMHO C.A.A.F. has also put the question to rest.

Appellant argues before this Court that the military judge improperly restricted his right to present his defense at this court-martial. This improper restriction, he asserts, stems from the trial judge’s misreading of RCM 701 and his resulting rejections of appellant’s profferred defense of "innocent ingestion." He contends that the trial judge erroneously prevented him from testifying to his belief that his drink was spiked, and to the circumstances supporting that belief, unless he had corroborating witnesses who actually tampered with his drink or saw someone else do it. We hold that the trial judge’s reading of RCM 701 was incorrect.