The court-martial of Gen. William Hull — who gave up Detroit to the British without a fight during the War of 1812 — began Jan. 3, 1814.
Deemed a coward, Hull was found guilty of dereliction of duty and sentenced to death, but President James Madison later reduced it because of the officer’s impressive Revolutionary War record of service. Historians later concluded that Hull’s actions in August 1812 were correct.
The Detroit Free Press reports.
Prof. Collin Miller has this item on his blog which is an excellent reminder about objections – an issue for the defense much more than prosecution.
You’ve seen it a million times in legal movies and TV shows. A lawyer asks a witness a question, opposing counsel stands up and exclaims, "Objection, your Honor," and the judge overrules (or sustains) the objection. Like many other aspects of legal movies and TV shows, this is not the way that things are usually done in courtrooms across the country. If an attorney merely stood up and said, "Objection," in response to a question without stating the grounds for that objection, that attorney would not have preserved the issue for appellate review. Indeed, as the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in State v. Reyes, 2009 WL 4730822 (R.I. 2009), makes clear, even if an attorney does state a ground for his objection, but it is the wrong ground, he has not preserved the issue for appellate review.
Mil. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) requires that when making a motion counsel at court-martial, “[state] the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context[.]”
A pun too close to call. Article 15 and court-martial could be on the horizon for more Marines.
Smile, you’re on security cameras.
Despite the field overhead of video surveillance at the exchanges aboard Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C., Marines are betting the odds they won’t get caught stealing.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Justice Department prosecutors improperly built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said the government’s explanations were “contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.”
And all charges have been dismissed, reports Air Force Times.
In ruling one month before the defendants were to face trial in Washington, Judge Urbina dismissed the case not for its merits, but for the way the government had handled the prosecution, calling the government’s explanations for the improper use of statements “contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.”
Attorney John Galligan says Maj. Nidal Hasan has excessive restrictions — including a rule barring any visitors when his attorneys are in his hospital room.
Air Force Times reports.
This same rule operates at the pretrial confinement facility. The Brigs are pretty good about letting counsel in to visit for “legal visits.” But there are restrictions on mingling of family visits and “professional” visits.
Dear Representative Burton,
Thank you for your letter expressing your and your colleagues concern regarding the pending Courts-martial of Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe, and Keefe. I understand your interest in these cases and can assure you that I am committed to protecting the rights of the Sailors who have been accused.
Regrettably it appears that your perception of the incident is based upon incomplete and factually inaccurate press coverage. Despite what has been reported, these allegations are not founded solely on the word of the detainee, but rather, were initially raised by other U.S. service members. Additionally, the alleged injuries did not occur during actions on the objective, as is also being widely reported in the media. A medical examination conducted at the time the detainee was turned over to U.S. forces determined that his alleged injuries were inflicted several hours after the operation had ended, and while in the custody and care of the U.S. at Camp Schweidler’s detainee holding facility.
The Fall of a Black Army Officer: Racism & the Myth of Henry O. Flipper, by Charles M. Robinson III, Norman, Ok: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008.
In his 1994 book The Court-Martial of Lieutenant Henry Flipper, Robinson, an historian of the frontier army, held to the view that Flipper?s 1881 conviction for embezzlement was rooted in racism.
Reviewing materials not available at the time he did the earlier book, in the present work Robinson concludes that, while not denying the existence of racism in the army, Flipper had indeed been careless with funds, albeit probably intentionally. Such financial misconduct apparently was not uncommon in the Old Army, as very young officers were often given responsibility for large sums with little or not training. A number of other officers in the period were also found short in their accounts. The penalties handed out to most of these officers, however, were not usually immediate expulsion from the service, which is where the Flipper case differs from theirs.
Should military veterans get a break when they are sentenced for crimes?
Asks a piece in the Wall Street Journal. This is interesting in light of some discussion on CAAFLog about sentencing in court-martial and sentence ranges under the UCMJ. Seems some civilian judges are more interested in giving a sentence based on the whole person and individualized rather than a set amount.
“We dump all kinds of money to get soldiers over there and train them to kill, but we don’t do anything to reintegrate them into our society,” says John L. Kane, a federal judge in Denver.
Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland has responded to a letter that challenges the handling of a case against three Navy SEALs accused of mishandling a suspected terrorist.
In the Dec. 15 letter, addressed to Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., Cleveland essentially refuses to drop the charges against the three men."While the assault and resulting injury to the detainee were relatively minor, the more disconcerting allegations are those related to the sailor’s attempts to cover-up the incident," said Cleveland, who writes that this appears to be an attempt to influence the testimony of a witness.
Cleveland writes that the "alleged allegations are not founded solely on the word of the detainee, but rather, were initially raised by other U.S. service members."
State Department investigators say Chief Engineman (SW) Arturo Puente at Jacksonville’s Mayport Naval Station has used a false name for the last 22 years while working at U.S. embassies in Rome and Panama, according to the Florida Times-Union newspaper.
Navy Times reports. No indications of a court-martial or any UCMJ violations.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog