Army officials agreed to delay a mental evaluation for the man suspected of going on a shooting spree at Fort Hood until after a military court hearing that will determine if he will stand trial, his attorney said Wednesday.
Houston Chronicle.com reports.
Lamb denied a request for civilian mental health experts to be on the panel, Galligan said, adding that "we will continue to fight that."
You’ll remember some time ago now that a suspect was arrested trying to visit Major Hasan while in hospital.
A Texas man accused of saying he legally represented alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan is bipolar and was off his medication, his lawyer said.
Senan Kahtan Abrahem of San Antonio was released Monday on unsecured bond after his lawyer told a federal magistrate Abrahem had resumed his medication and was not a flight risk, the San Antonio Express-News reported Tuesday.
An attorney for the Army psychiatrist accused of going on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood said Monday he wants his client’s mental evaluation delayed, citing a potential conflict of interest with the exam panel.
Army officials previously appointed a three-member board of military mental health professionals to determine whether Maj. Nidal Hasan is competent to stand trial and his mental status the day of the November shooting, which left 13 dead and dozens wounded on the Texas Army post.
Military.com reports.
I’m traveling to the USDB (and get to come home), so here are some hits.
I follow fourthamendment.com blog every day. Here is part of his reference to Huntzinger, and CAAF’s pending oral argument.
Don’t expect a decision in a while. I’ve always been intrigued by the quality of opinions from the CAAF, so I’m looking forward to it.
Fort Lewis case of the soldier accused of causing the death of his 16 year old girlfriend with a drug overdose.
A 20-year-old Fort Lewis soldier has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the overdose death of his 16-year-old girlfriend in his barracks.
A military judge ruled Friday that Pvt. Timothy Bennitt was guilty of “aiding and abetting” Leah King’s wrongful use of the painkiller oxymorphone and anxiety pill Xanax.
Here’s a catch-up on some recent news items.
CAAF, ACCA, and CGCCA have issued some published opinions. Thanks CAAFLog for the following items on cases.
United States v. Franklin, __ M.J. ___, No. ARMY 20090035 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 20, 2010) (per curiam). The opinion is available here.
Army authorities are now claiming that Galesburg soldier Spc. Billy Miller had [AP] on his computer as well as alleged [CP] . Miller’s tour in Afghanistan has been involuntarily extended by the army while it investigates charges of possession of [CP] and failing to obey a general order. . . . But now military officials say the failing to obey a general order charge relates to pornography involving adults found on the Illinois National Guard soldier’s computer. Soldiers are not allowed to possess pornography in Afghanistan[.]
Galesburg.com reports.
A child pornography charge and a related count filed against an Illinois Army National Guard soldier in Afghanistan do not stem from family photos of a young relative, a U.S. Army spokesman told The Associated Press on Tuesday. . . . "In this case however, it was important to set the record straight with regards to the photos of the (relative) being portrayed as evidence leading to [CP] charges in this case. They are not," Clementson wrote.
Does it exist or not. Here are a couple of news articles about a pending case in Fairfax, VA.
Shaken baby syndrome itself is put on trial in Fairfax court
Three interesting grants from CAAF in the last few days.
No. 07-0401/NA. U.S. v. Russell B. MULLINS. CCA 200200988. Review granted on the following issues:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IMPERMISSIBLE IN THE MILITARY JUDGE ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE LIE DETECTOR TESTIMONY IN VIOLATION OF MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 702.
Here is a case from federalevidence.com:
Supervisor expert testified about his role in the peer review process; passing reference to the testing chemist’s conclusion did not violate the Confrontation Clause; circuit also distinguishes Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009), in United States v. Turner," _ F.3d _ (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2010) (No. 08-3109)
A recent Seventh Circuit case revisits the issue of expert testimony which refers to the analysis of another expert. Is the Confrontation Clause violated when a supervisor testifies about the peer review process, his role in confirming reviewing the test results, and the initial results of another chemist? On the fact of the case, the circuit concluded there was no constitutional violation.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog