I posted yesterday on a new Army case dealing with instructions on an affirmative defense in a court-martial under the UCMJ.
Today I’m posting on United States v. Ramon, an unpublished opinion from the NMCCA dated 28 September 2010.
In his sole assignment of error, the appellant alleges that the military judges erred in failing to instruct the members as to mistake of fact as to consent.
On 23 September 2010 USA Today published a front page piece about federal prosecutors.
Federal prosecutors are supposed to seek justice, not merely score convictions. But a USA TODAY investigation found that prosecutors repeatedly have violated that duty in courtrooms across the nation. The abuses have put innocent people in prison, set guilty people free and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees and sanctions.
USA Today has an opinion piece in today’s paper which is a rebuttal.
United States v. Stanley.
The appellant raised eight errors through counsel and an additional six in accordance with United States v. Grostefon.
One assignment of error warrants discussion, but no relief. Specifically, appellant alleges that the military judge erred by failing to properly instruct the panel regarding appellant’s right during mutual combat to exercise self-defense when the force used against him escalated. Today we find that any error by the military judge was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirm the findings and sentence.
Here is an observation by federalevidence.com:
One issue raised by the new case concerns whether a majority of the Court still supports the Confrontation Clause analysis established under Crawford v. Washington in 2004, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in 2009. Two Justices who voted in the majority (John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter) have since retired. The five majority votes in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts included author Justice Antonin Scalia and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas (who also filed a concurring opinion), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four dissenting included Justice Kennedy, who authored the dissent, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.. It is unclear whether a new majority will be formed on the Confrontation Clause analysis and how the newest Justices (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) will vote on Confrontation Clause issues.
Humor in military lawyering is good. Humor is good. Standby for a comment from DMLHS tonight.
In thinking about why the case would be delayed to 3 November 2010 there were all kinds of ideas floating around, some ideas being of a conspiratorial nature. I had missed the piece noted by Reality Check (thanks!). Anyway, I thought the first place to go would be be docket – but first a digression on the piece of reporting Reality Check caught.
The military judge did delay the start of the trial for a month to give the defense more time to ask the court of appeals for help. (WUSA9 — http://goo.gl/Am1Q)
Daily Commercial reports:
To police Chief Ed Nathanson, it doesn’t matter where you’ve been convicted as a sex offender or predator.
It only matters that you’ve been convicted.
NIMJ was able to send Charlie Fowler to monitor todays Article 39(a), UCMJ, session.
1. Trial is continued until 4 November 2010 from 13 October 2010. Not sure of the reason. It appears Mr. Jensen asked the judge to hold the case “in abeyance” pending resolution of an (untimely?) writ which has been filed with NMCCA. According to Charlie the defense said the reason for the potentially untimely filing was “for reasons I can’t get into right now[.]” Huuuuuuuum, this has resonance. I think I’ll try this one in a couple of weeks. (Note to DMLHS, this citation to authority has to be on the top ten this year.)
2. Unsurprisingly to those familiar with military justice the judge ruled the orders to be legal.
Disagreement arose todday among supporters of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor facing military court-martial for refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan after questioning Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president.
A group of retired military officers organized as the Veterans Council and the United States Patriot Union in Sheridan, Wyo., issued a white paper calling on Lakin’s legal defense team to change strategy.
New York Times piece with a portion of video from Morlock’s confession.
Washington Post on the Ramrod Five.
A U.S. Army staff sergeant dreamed up a plan for fellow soldiers to kill three Afghan civilians this year because he was motivated by “pure hatred,” another soldier accused in the slayings has told investigators
It has been (fill in the blank) days since LTC Lakin has been denied some discovery and witnesses for his case. His website has been updated in one place to say “Judge To Rule On Defense Request,” but the breaking news column still has the old verbiage, “Judge to Rules On Defense Request.” Of course we all know the judge has ruled. The point is though that someone is updating the site. The ruling has been adverse to LTC Lakin. I think we can say that the site managers have deliberately avoided placing adverse information on the site. Here’s some questions.
LTC Lakin and his attorney are advertising the case on the internet and a website is being used to solicit funds for LTC Lakin’s defense (we can take issue with the purported amount, compare for example an estimate of $100,000.00 to defend PFC Bradley Manning the Wikileaks accused). Mr. Jensen’s website links back to safeguardourconstitution “For More Information Visit the Case Site.” Is the advertising for funds truthful at this point, if the advertising is not truthful at this point is LTC Lakin himself complicit in a lack of truthfulness, and if LTC Lakin is complicit in this is he acting as an officer and a gentleman? At what point, if any, and I think this question goes beyond LTC Lakin, is a client responsible for “advertising” about their case which is ongoing? At what point is an attorney responsible for the accuracy of his or her advertising about a case they have ongoing? To what extent is advertising about an ongoing case consistent with Rule 3.6 of the Army (or similar other Service rule) professional responsibility rules – AR 27-26. As we bloggers know the Army has been reluctant to publically discuss and/or release LTC Lakin’s case.
Subsequent to the 2 September 2010 ruling LTC Lakin through counsel has said publically a number of times that an extraordinary writ will be filed. To date no writ appears to have been filed. The next scheduled event is for an Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing on 28 September 2010. So now what?
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog