court-martial Tag Archives — Page 50 of 60 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Second trial counsel

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

At this point, the military judge interjected and asked 11 foundational questions of the witness. The questions were limited to Major D’s past service as an enlisted Marine in the same MOS as the appellant, his supervisory responsibilities as a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant within that MOS, the total number of years he served within the MOS, and the duties generally assigned within the MOS. Defense counsel did not object to any of the 11 questions asked by the military judge.

The NMCCA did not find the military judge’s laying a foundation for admissibility deprived the accused of a fair trial, in United States v. Davis, NMCCA 200900406 (N-M.C. Ct. Crim. App. 15 December 2009). The court did not opine on why the trial counsel was unprepared to lay a foundation for the witnesses testimony, but did consider the failure of the defense to object as adverse to the accused.

Bottom line to the case: trial counsel need not prepare to lay a foundation for witness testimony or documents, because if they don’t the military judge will do it for them. Teaching point, trial counsel need not be aware of the rules for admission of testimony and laying a foundation, and they need not interview and prepare their witness in advance of trial.

Recruiter misconduct

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

With a core part of my business relating to recruiter misconduct issues within the services, I found this item interesting.

Inland rape, other cases spur new ethics training for Marine recruiters.

About 20 military court-martial trials involving recruiters are under way at any given time, Richardson said. He said statistics show about 3 percent of recruiters are dismissed or face criminal charges for misconduct. He estimated that another 4 or 5 percent probably don’t get caught.

Major Hasan representation

December 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I blogged a bit of gossip the other day that there may now be up to 12 trial counsel working on Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s court-martial. I had blogged that Major Hasan had two military counsel, that appears wrong, and so too might be the rumor of 12 TC.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood last month, won’t get the two additional military lawyers his defense team has requested.

John P. Galligan, the retired Army colonel who is representing Maj. Hasan, asked the Army earlier this month to add the veteran legal officers to the defense team. In addition to Mr. Galligan, Maj. Hasan has a military-appointed defense counsel, Maj. Christopher Martin.

Freedom of speech

December 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

How far can speech go?

March Forward! is an affiliate of the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). Along with others in the Coalition, we are organizing against the Iraq and Afghanistan war while fighting for social and economic justice at home—including the struggle against racism and all forms of discrimination and bigotry. March Forward! operates based on the belief that real change comes through struggle and mass action.

In 2008, veterans and active-duty service members who had been seasoned activists and leaders in the movement against the Iraq war joined together to form March Forward! Our aim is to unite all those who have served and who currently serve in the U.S. military, and who want to stand up for our rights and for that which is right!

Major Hasan’s pretrial confinement hearing

December 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The man accused of the Fort Hood shooting rampage is facing tighter restrictions on his communication with the world outside the hospital room, where he lies paralyzed from the chest down, his lawyer said Monday.

The lawyer, John P. Galligan, said Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan fell asleep during an hour-long hearing held at his hospital bed on Saturday, during which a military magistrate ruled that the suspect should be placed in pretrial confinement. That is a legal status that essentially turns his hospital room, at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, into a jail cell.

He added that he is concerned the Army plans to move Maj. Hasan to Bell County jail here, which is under contract with Fort Hood to serve as a brig, when house-arrest might be more appropriate.

Pregnancy and court-martial

December 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

You’ll have seen the blogging and news reports about the potential consequences of a pregnancy while serving in the AOR – which could include court-martial.

A US Army general in northern Iraq has defended his decision to add pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could face court martial.

The BBC reports.

Up periscope

December 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

A former Navy master chief petty officer was sentenced Dec. 11 to four years in prison for stealing nearly $40 million in fuel from the U.S. Army in Iraq, according to the Department of Justice.

Stars & Stripes reports. One suspects he might of received a higher sentence if prosecuted at court-martial under the UCMJ, as a retiree recall.

A wide-ranging Department of Defense survey revealed the rate of servicemembers attempting suicide has doubled in recent years, coinciding with an increase in those reporting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and those abusing prescription drugs.

Not surprised

December 20, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Why am I not surprised by Issue III. See one of my earlier blogs — The Prosecutor’s Gamble. I’ve blogged several times about trial counsel “suppression” of evidence or information favorable to the defense, despite frequent public relations statements and appellate cases lauding the more open discovery to which a court-martial accused is entitled to under the UCMJ.

The military justice system provides for broader discovery than required by practice in federal civilian criminal trials. See United States v. Williams, 50 M.J. 436, 439-40 (C.A.A.F. 1999).

Statutory and implemental regulatory discovery rights of a military accused are more generous than the constitutional discovery rights of his civilian counterpart. See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 38 M.J. 376 (C.M.A. 1993); United States v. Green, 37 M.J. 88 (C.M.A. 1993); United States v. Eshalomi, 23 M.J. 12 (C.M.A. 1986).

No Coast Guard leadership?

December 19, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Article 32, UCMJ, hearing for a Coast Guard O-6 accused of fraternization, adultery, and other offenses with enlisted and junior officer personnel is finished. An IO report is pending and then a CA decision. If the information reported as to the general nature of the case is true then it looks like the O-6 is on his way to trial or an OTHIL if he’s lucky.

Coast Guard Report is the blog questioning an absence of leadership related to disciplinary matters within the USCG.

Fraternization

December 18, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

A brief moment of sexual contact between a senior noncommissioned officer and a subordinate sent both soldiers down different roads of guilt and despair.

Military.com reports on a court-martial in Korea.