Here is a interesting story of caution from Wired.com, and a potential court-martial for blogging in violation of the UCMJ.
But when he called President Obama a liar on his blog, and started using the site to go after his local school board, Grisham “found himself the target of an inspector general investigation and a threatened general letter of reprimand. Now his command is exploring formal charges against him,” Military Times reports.
Military Times reports:
Two items of interest from the November Army Lawyer for court-martial cases under the UCMJ.
Personal Jurisdiction: What Does It Mean for Pay to be “Ready for Delivery ”in Accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1168(a)?
Know Your Ground: The Military Justice Terrain of Afghanistan
That is Professor Colin Miller’s entree to:
The Shrink(ing) Privilege, Take 2: New York Times Article Reports That Exceptions To Military Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Are Hindering Therapy.
My post is here on the NYT article discussing the military patient-psychotherapist privilege at court-martial and under the UCMJ.
FederalEvidence blog has posted:
Fifth Circuit addresses an open issue concerning admission of medical statements under the Confrontation Clause; circuit also notes that “there is no constitutional right to confront the victim of a crime” where the government elects not to call the victim at trial, in United States v. Santos, _ F.3d _ (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2009) (No. 08-31225).
On the issue of “whether out-of-court statements made during medical treatment are testimonial,” the circuit was guided by two recent Supreme Court decision. The first case involved dicta from the Court’s most recent Confrontation Clause decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, noting that “medical reports created for treatment purposes . . . would not be testimonial.” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. at 2533 n.2.
That’s how Tom Ricks characterizes the recent actions when the Navy relieved the CO, CMC, and transferred the XO of USS JAMES WILLIAMS (DDG 95). No court-martials of the leadership are 
anticipated. However, as Kate Wiltrout’s article points out, there have been quite a few disciplinary actions. The number of enlisted khaki involved seems quite extraordinary for the size of this ship’s crew.
Here is Kate Wiltrout’s article in The PilotOnline.
The commanding officer and highest-ranking enlisted sailor aboard the Norfolk-based destroyer James E. Williams were removed Friday in the wake of a fraternization scandal that erupted on a recent deployment.
Briscoe v. Virginia, a post Crawford and Melendez-Diaz case is scheduled to be argued at the U. S. Supreme Court on 11 January 2010. Professor Friedman will argue for petitioner Briscoe.
Professor Friedman notes that, “I have just served and filed the reply in Briscoe. You can read it by clicking here.”
All of the prior documents about this case can be found at SCOTUSWiki. This case is of importance to military justice practitioners. There are several cases pending within military appellate courts that might be affected by Briscoe, as well as some cases pending at court-martial. Some of my prior comments are here.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s defense attorney skirmished with Army commanders Wednesday over the timing of a sanity examination for the Fort Hood gunman, saying that his client is still too medically impaired to participate.
So begins a piece in the Dallas News. What’s the flaw. There is no judge that attorney Galligan can go to or appeal to.
"This is getting dirty," lawyer John Galligan said of the Army. "These guys have made it clear that they’re going for blood."
United States v. Story. Here the issue is two-fold: what is the response when the members want to call a witness, and what is permissible on appeal to demonstrate prejudice. ACCA found error in the military judge denying the members an opportunity to call a witness. On appeal, ACCA found that documents submitted by appellate government and appellate defense could not be considered. This seems odd, because the defense is trying to show prejudice from the error and the government is trying to show lack of prejudice.
When the members returned, immediately after calling the court to order and accounting for the parties, the following colloquy ensued:
MJ: Members, the bailiff indicated that you had a question? Colonel Meyer is shaking her head.
The Navy’s rule forcing sailors to “promptly” tell their commanding officers if they have been arrested for an off-base drunken-driving violation is unconstitutional, the Navy and Marine Corps’s highest military judges have ruled.
And so begins a Navy Times article on United States v. Serianne.
I have posted before about the new DoD regulation that requires persons E-6 and above to report all civilian convictions.
Here are a couple of interesting items exploring the mental health issues potentially involved with Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood – conclusion, he’s sane.
Howard Bloom asks, What if Nidal Malik Hasan is Sane? Psychology Today blog.
Were they the insane acts of a man driven over the edge by the vicarious stress of war? By the strain of hearing horror stories from the traumatized veterans of battles in Iraq and Iran?
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog