Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogThe Article 32, UCMJ, hearing has been rescheduled for 1 June 2010.
KWTC.com reports.
Articles Tagged with court-martial
Supreme Court “Miranda” cases
The court has decided Maryland v. Shatzer (background documents on SCOTUSWiki here ) and also Florida v. Powell (background documents on SCOTUSWiki here). Both cases relate to “Miranda” rights and confessions. In Powell, the issue was how much detail must go into a “Miranda” warning in order to be sufficient, in Shatzer the court addresses the break in custody situation.
In Powell the issue was whether the rights advice given properly conveyed to the suspect that he had the right to counsel present during questioning and not just before being questioned. After an interesting discussion showing how ambiguous the language used was, the court found the appellant was adequately advised. Interestingly, the court noted that:
The standard warnings used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation are exemplary. They provide, in relevant part: “You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning.” Ibid., n. 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). This advice is admirably informative, but we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda’s requirements. Different words were used in the advice Powell received, but they communicated the same essential message.
CAAF issues two decisions
United States v. Douglas. This is a UCI case. The military judge found UCI and then crafted a remedy. The issue on appeal related to the appropriateness of the remedy and whether or not the appellant had accepted the remedy and actively participated in the remedy. The AFCCA decision was reversed.
If the record disclosed that the reasonable remedy had been implemented in full, Appellant’s participation in and apparent acquiescence at trial to the remedy crafted and Appellant’s
disavowal of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would end the inquiry. However, because the record does not disclose whether the remedy crafted by the military judge was
actually implemented in full, under the facts of this case we devolve to the ordinary test whether unlawful command influence deprived Appellant of access to character witnesses. United States v. Gleason, 43 M.J. 69, 73 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (explaining the government’s burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defense access to witnesses was not impeded by unlawful command influence). We are not convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt that Appellant was not thus prejudiced. United States v. Biagase, 50 M.J. 143, 151 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (finding beyond a reasonable doubt the correct quantum of proof applicable to issues of unlawful command influence). Accordingly, we overturn the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
The facts of this case are not uncommon. Commands routinely give no contact orders to an accused (but interestingly not their own witnesses). It is not unusual for a command to cast an accused adrift, make them an outcast, and directly or indirectly imply to others that supporting and helping the outcast will be viewed with disfavor.
Coast Guard appellate case of interest – and providency
Is a false marriage certificate to claim otherwise unauthorized allowances an official document? No, it would be the presentation of that document as showing an entitlement that is the false statement, not the marriage certificate itself. The court also found the appellant’s plea to a conspiracy to commit a false official statement as improvident. The providency issue seems as much related to the military judge’s questioning method, rather than a factual basis. This was a not untypical plea where the military judge had to help the accused through providency by getting yes / no answers to leading questions.
United States v. McClary.
Here are some stream-of-consciousness thoughts for the defense counsel.
Up periscope WE210210
Pilot Online reports:
Five sailors could offer testimony contradicting the government’s main witness in the controversial prosecution of three Navy SEALs accused of mistreating a suspected Iraqi terrorist.
But whether they’ll take the stand is in question after the government denied their requests for immunity on Friday.
Col Murphy retired at O-2 rank (corrected)
An Air Force colonel will be forced to retire as a first lieutenant, an Air Force review determined.
Col. Michael D. Murphy, convicted in April 2009 by a general court-martial for failing to tell the Air Force he was disbarred as an attorney in 1984, will be retired from the Air Force effective April 1 as a first lieutenant, Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Barbara Carson said Monday.
By operation of 10 U.S. Code Sec. 1407, his monthly retirement check will be based on the amount of his last check. That last check will be based on his being an O-2 with 20 plus years of service. $4377.30 is the current rate for over 20 years, still nothing to sniff at under the circumstances.
Interesting ACCA case pending
In United States v. Willis, No. ARMY 20071339, which is being argued on Thursday, the issue is: “WHETHER THE PROSECUTION AGAINST APPELLANT WAS BARRED BY A GRANT OF DE FACTO IMMUNITY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO DISMISS CHARGES IF APPELLANT PASSED A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION AND APPELLANT PASSED A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION.”
h/tip CAAFLog.
Concerned about alcohol abuse
The Navy’s largest overseas installation has seen a significant drop in incidents of drinking and driving over the last two years, thanks in part, to a persistent sobriety checkpoint program, according to base officials.
Stars & Stripes reports.
The answer to alcohol related incidents, including deaths, injury, and property damage is simple. Treat alcohol as the drug that it is. Treat alcohol the same way any other drug use is treated in the military. Alcohol is considered the number one drug of abuse is it not. Ban alcohol use unless it is prescribed.
Major Hasan update
[L]ate Friday afternoon, the Army said the hearing has been moved to June 1 in response to a defense request.
KWTX.com reports. Although they still persist in referring the to Article 32, UCMJ, hearing as equivalent to a grand jury.
UA mom
Both Hutchinson and her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, are happy with the results. In a press release from Sussman’s office, Hutchinson said that she is "excited to know what will happen to me, and that I am not facing jail.
“Alexis is pleased because she now will have closure and knows what is going to happen to her," Sussman told Truthout. "She is no longer waiting to possibly go to trial and jail, all the while trying to figure out what to do with her child. She feels she was treated unfairly overall, but is relieved with this outcome."
Jeff Paterson, the director of the soldier advocacy group Courage to Resist, which has assisted Hutchinson, felt that the administrative discharge was a victory all around.