court-martial Tag Archives — Page 49 of 60 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Limiting instructions

December 24, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here I’m talking about limiting instructions at court-martial, not alleged curative instructions.

A limiting instruction is appropriate where evidence is admissible for one or more purposes, but is also inadmissible for one or more purposes. Here is a reminder from federalevidence blog of how that works.

In multi-defendant cocaine conspiracy trial, FRE 105 was satisfied by trial judge’s limiting instruction prior to deliberations that the jury give “separate, personal consideration to the case of each individual defendant” and to “analyze what the evidence in the case shows with respect to that individual, leaving out of consideration entirely any evidence admitted solely against some other defendant”; although the instruction was provided immediately prior to deliberations rather than contemporaneous with the testimony, the instruction satisfied the obligation to instruct jury when evidence can be admitted against one party and not others, in United States v. Beasley, 495 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. July 25, 2007) (No. 04-4107)

NMCCA sets aside BCD for Article 13 credit

December 24, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Article 13, UCMJ, prohibits pretrial punishment.

In United States v. Turner, NMCCA 200401570 (N-M.C. Ct. Crim. App. 22 December 2009), the court found pretrial punishment and set-aside the BCD. This may be somewhat pyrrhic because the sentence was adjudged in 2001. That means the appellant has been on unpaid appellate leave since 2001. In his claim for post-trial delay he does not assert that being on appellate leave without a DD214 was prejudicial.

When the ship returned from its brief underway period, the appellant was brought from the
pretrial confinement facility to appear before the Captain and crew at a public mast (“mast” is frequently understood to mean nonjudicial punishment proceedings, but it also includes award ceremonies and individual meetings held at a service member’s request). After the Captain informed the appellant and the crew that the charges were being referred for trial, the appellant returned to pretrial confinement.

Good call Mr. President

December 24, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The White House will not weigh in on the case of the three Navy SEALs facing court martial for allegedly mistreating an Iraqi terror suspect believed to have been behind the slaying of four Americans in 2004.

CNSNews.com reports.

We already have too much litigation by media, and by Congress in courts-martials and other UCMJ actions. The politicizing of military justice doesn’t serve military justice.

Still open case

December 24, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Nearly two years after prosecutors in Jacksonville decided not to charge anyone in the gunfight that killed a club owner outside his bar north of Springfield, the Navy has acquitted a sailor of murder in the case.

NewsJacksonville.com reports —

Navy prosecutors would only say they had believed the case should be pursued.

Major Hasan gossip

December 24, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

An Army psychiatrist accused of fatally shooting 13 at the Fort Hood, Texas, military base had asked for a Muslim cleric’s advice about killing U.S. troops, according to a new interview.

CNN.com reports.

Retired Army Col. John Galligan, Hasan’s civilian attorney, has said his client is considering pleading not guilty by reason of insanity [at his court-martial].

UP

December 23, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Some news stories:

"US: SOLDIERS FORCED TO GO AWOL FOR PTSD CARE." Inter Press Service English News Wire. 2009. HighBeam Research. (December 23, 2009). http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-174196126.html

With a military health care system over-stretched by two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, more soldiers are deciding to go absent without leave (AWOL) in order to find treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Third SEAL pleads NG

December 22, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The third SEAL accused in the assault of an alleged al-Qaida terrorist pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges of dereliction of duty and making a false official statement in a military court on Norfolk Naval Base.

Trial by court-martial is set for 6 April 2010, Navy Times reports. The other two SEAL’s alleged to be involved with violating the UCMJ have each plead not guilty and have trial dates set.

More pregnancy issues.

December 22, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is the Order in question regarding getting pregnant while deployed to the AOR. So far as reported earlier there have not been any court-martials.

Bob McCarty has blogged the issue from what appears to be a non-lawyer perspective.

Discipline under new pregnancy rules

December 22, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Seven U.S. soldiers, including three men, have already been punished under six-week-old rules making pregnancy a violation of military law in northern Iraq.

Stars & Stripes reports.

The four soldiers who became pregnant were given letters of reprimand that will not remain a part of the permanent military file, Cucolo said, as were two of the male soldiers.

Litigation by Media and Congress

December 21, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

For some years now, primarily relating to Iraq/Afghanistan cases there has been lots of litigation by media and congress. The current move to save the SEALs by congress is just the most recent example of seeking to influence a court-martial case. The “litigation” has been both for and against the military member. We all remember the issue of Congressman Murtha calling for prosecution of a Marine for alleged misconduct. Whether such litigation is good for the system and the UCMJ is a different question. In this day and age of millisecond journalism and sound-bites here are a couple of thoughts and a caution. LawProf blog has posted:

Laurie L. Levenson (Loyola Law School Los Angeles) has posted Prosecutorial Soundbites: When Do They Cross the Line? (Georgia Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Even good prosecutors can cross the line with media soundbites. Especially in high-profile cases, prosecutors must assess if their pretrial remarks about a case meet their ethical obligations. In Gentile v. Nevada State Bar, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that while lawyers have the First Amendment right to make comments to the press, they do not have the right to make comments that have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” Although ethical codes have adopted this broad standard, many have failed to identify more specifically when a prosecutor’s remarks pose a substantial likelihood of having such a prejudicial effect. Using 28 C.F.R. § 50.2 as a guide, this article seeks to identify those “hot-button” areas.