court-martial Tag Archives — Page 4 of 60 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

NMCCA provides reminder of multiplicity in drug cases

October 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Pippins, is a reminder that when a person possesses drug for a persons own use and/or distribution, the possession is an LIO of the use or the distribution.

A review of multiplicity in this case centers on whether the appellant’s possession of BZP is in the same act or course of conduct with her use and distribution of BZP. See United States v. Paxton, 64 M.J. 484, 490 (C.A.A.F. 2007); United States v. Teters, 37 M.J. 370, 373 (C.M.A. 1993). Possession is a lesser included offense of both use and, under the facts of this case, distribution. See MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2008 ed.), Part IV, ¶ 37d. See also United States v. Zubko, 18 M.J. 378, 385-86 (C.A.A.F. 1984).

Thus, any time an accused is charged with both use and possession or distribution and possession of the same amount, there should be a dismissal for multiplicity.

DON ROT’s

October 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a link to the 29 September 2010, JAGINST 5813.1B, Standardization of General Courts-Martial and Special Courts-Martial Verbatim and Summarized Records of Trial.

Up periscope

October 21, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Air Force Times reports:

A U.S. soldier was taken into custody after an Afghan detainee was found dead in his cell, apparently from a gunshot wound, NATO said in a statement Tuesday night.

Military.com reports:

Pretrial and trial publicity

October 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Federal Evidence Review references:

In conspiracy and arson trial, reversing and remanding when trial court failed "to make adequate inquiries regarding news stories" that appeared during deliberations and their impact on juror’s deliberations; the judge erroneously failed to explore "whether any juror heard any of the information" and its impact on the jury, in United States v. Waters, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2010) (No. 08-30222)

The Ninth Circuit recently considered the trial court’s responsibilities to make specific inquiry of jurors when "adverse publicity occurs during deliberations" of the jury. The case can help clear up confusion about the role of the trial court, particularly in light of FRE 606(b) limiting inquiry into a verdict.

Ramrod Five/Stryker brigade

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

USA Today is reporting that Morlock has been referred to trial non-capital. As does Reuters, MSNBC and other news outlets.

San Diego Bay Coast Guard boating collision

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

the log (California’s Boating & Fishing News) reports:

The Coast Guard has ordered three petty officers to stand trial in a San Diego Bay crash that killed an 8-year-old boy during a holiday boat parade, an official said Oct. 6.

Rear Adm. Joseph R. Castillo, commander of the 11th Coast Guard District, ordered the general court-martial after reviewing a report by the investigating officer, Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Rick Foster said. That report concluded there was no legal justification for the Dec. 20, 2009, crash, the Los Angeles Times has reported.

LTC Lakin sitrep

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

I happened to have business at MDW today so I stopped by to take LTC Lakin’s pulse for his upcoming court-martial and watch today’s Article 39(a), UCMJ, session.

The writ was denied today. A straight line standard denial [thanks to CAAFLog for a copy].

1. Mr. Jensen was excused from further participation in the case at the specific affirmative consent of LTC Lakin, because he’d been “discharged.” See R.C.M. 506(c).

MAJ Hasan

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

curiouser and curiouser, the Houston Chronicle reports:

Army Col. James Pohl he told the defense it could put its arguments for the continuance into writing rather than air them in court. Defense attorneys did not want to explain their reasons publicly.

"I believe that would protect your client’s interest," Pohl said, adding that he would "give you that option rather than discuss it in open court."

In the Supremes

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

Today the court will hear oral argument in Premo v. Moore, a case with potential ramifications for court-martials. Courtesy of SCOTUSBlog here is a summary:

The Sixth Amendment secures a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel. Under Strickland v. Washington (1984), that right is violated when a lawyer’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness, resulting in prejudice to the defendant. Counsel’s representation is prejudicial when there is a reasonable probability that, but for the lawyer’s deficiencies, the proceeding would have ended differently. Some defendants accept a plea bargain and then argue that their counsel was ineffective; in those cases, Hill v. Lockhart (1985) instructs a court to ask whether there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have gone to trial had his counsel been constitutionally adequate. When the Court hears argument tomorrow in Premo v. Moore (09-658), it will attempt to clarify how Strickland and Hill apply to plea deals that are made after counsel fails to suppress an unconstitutionally obtained confession.

For those who want to go right to the papers here is the SCOTUSBlog page.

MEJA, CEJA, etc., etc., etc.

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

Huffington Post has this piece about PMC’s and the UCMJ.

It is common to complain that the while the use of private military contractors (PMC) has grown rapidly in the past decade, the legal apparatus to hold them accountable has failed to keep pace. But that is not as true as it once was. In fact, there are at least four distinct sources of criminal law that can hold contractors accountable for their actions: (1) international law, (2) host-nation law, (3) U.S. civilian law, and (4) U.S. military law. Of course, all of these have their own limitations and problems, such as jurisdiction and applicability.

But military law, at least for the U.S., the world’s biggest consumer of PMC services, military law shows increased promise.