WFAA.com reports that:
Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan’s attorney tells News 8 he will ask a military judge Thursday morning to close the upcoming Article 32 Hearing for his client to the public and press.
“I think it’s necessary to ensure he can eventually get a fair trial at Fort Hood,” (Ret.) Col. John Galligan, Hasan’s civilian attorney, told News 8 Wednesday. “We need to make sure his Sixth Amendment rights are not jeopardized.”
The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has issued an opinion in United States v. Hull.
The issues on appeal are: whether the staff judge advocate (SJA) erred by advising the convening authority (CA), pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1106, that no new trial was warranted and whether the CA erred by failing to order a new trial despite the SJA’s acknowledgement that the appellant had presented new evidence that fell within the parameters of R.C.M. 1210. Further, the appellant filed a petition for a new trial pursuant to Article 73, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 873.
AFCCA denied relief on the merits of the appeal and denied a new trial. AFCCA reasoned that even if the information was newly discovered (AFCCA was not certain it could not have been obtained during pretrial preparations), the evidence would not,
Here is a link to United States v. Brasington., decided 13 September 2010. It is not unusual for an appellant to be issued a DD214, Honorable Discharge, sometime after a court-martial at which the appellant was adjudged a punitive discharge.
In this case, we are asked, following remand, whether an honorable discharge, effective after this court’s affirming a sentence that included a bad-conduct discharge, has the effect of remitting that discharge. We hold appellant’s administrative discharge was voidable, properly voided, and did not remit appellant’s premature discharge.
This was a rather odd situation because the appellant was an active duty Soldier and it was the Reserve command giving him the discharge. ACCA found that the Commander, HRC-StLouis had no authority to discharge appellant.
Here is a training video and handouts from NACDL. This may be helpful with your junior enlisted court-martial clients who are foreign nationals.
In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers must affirmatively and correctly advise their clients about the immigration consequences of entering a plea and failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. NACDL, in collaboration with the Defending Immigrants Partnership, will present a free live online training to discuss defense counsel’s duty under Padilla and related issues. Expert faculty analyze the Padilla decision, outline the steps defense counsel must take to provide effective assistance of counsel to their non-citizen clients, and provide essential instruction[.]
This is the 12th day that APF (safeguardourconstitution), LTC Lakin’s support site, has failed to post the military judge’s findings and conclusions, and advertises as “Breaking News,” “Judge to Rules (sic) . . ..”
The Post & Email reports today, submitted by Maj. Gen. Vallely:
The current Lakin defense strategy is limited to an ongoing search for a missing birth certificate that is of no real consequence, and they have been denied discovery access to any of Obama records, as well as anyone who has had access to those records. There is no defense for Lakin on this basis. . . .
New York Times has this good short piece about false confessions.
New research shows how people who were apparently uninvolved in a crime could provide such a detailed account of what occurred, allowing prosecutors to claim that only the defendant could have committed the crime.
An article by Professor Garrett draws on trial transcripts, recorded confessions and other background materials to show how incriminating facts got into those confessions — by police introducing important facts about the case, whether intentionally or unintentionally, during the interrogation.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:
A major Iraqi war crimes case that has dragged on for five years hit another snag Monday when a military judge excused one of the attorneys for a Marine sergeant whose squad was charged with killing 24 Iraqis. The move by military judge Lt. Col. David M. Jones came only weeks before the trial is set to begin on Nov. 2. Jones granted the request by the civilian attorney, retired Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, who asked to be withdrawn because of an undisclosed ethical conflict. . . .
Wuterich’s attorneys have filed a motion that seeks to have the case dismissed, arguing the defense has been compromised by the withdrawal of Vokey, the only defense attorney to go to Iraq to see the scene of the 2005 killings in the Iraqi village of Haditha.
Swinging a Sledge: The Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel, the Law of Deportations, and Padilla v. Kentucky, August 31, 2010, Joseph Ditkoff
In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court decided that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the effective assistance of legal counsel requires that counsel inform his client whether his guilty plea in a criminal case carries a risk of deportation. The Court’s decision significantly expands the reach of the traditional Sixth Amendment constitutional protection afforded criminal defendants via the long-established rule of Strickland v. Washington, and, concomitantly, significantly alters the landscape of what courts will consider to be adequate representation in criminal proceedings. The precise contours of the right, thus expanded, will be left to the vagaries of the common law in both state and federal court to map out. This short article will discuss Padilla and some of its forebears and foreshadowings. As will be seen, the Supreme Court has again left prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges with a somewhat muddy decision that leaves the hard work for later, and for others…
In light of the discussion ongoing about Denedo’s end, I thought this might be an interesting read.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a book review of Richard North Patterson’s new book which is about a court-martial. Yes, it’s about a Army officer who returns from Iraq, kills his former commander, and
As the case unfolds, Mr. Patterson gives the reader a tutorial in military justice as well as the complexities of PTSD. He also makes clear his stand against the war through testimonies from personnel involved with McCarran in Iraq.
The tension rises throughout the court-martial: Will the judge allow PTSD as a defense? Will the jury believe how the war changed not just McCarran, but the man he killed?
This is the 9th day that APF (safeguardourconstitution), LTC Lakin’s support site, has failed to post the military judge’s findings and conclusions, and advertises as “Breaking News,” “Judge to Rules (sic) . . ..”
The Greeley Gazette, hometown newspaper for LTC Lakin has the piece, “Retired JAG Officer Says Judge’s Ruling Against Discovery for Lakin Could Derail Case Based on Legal Precedent.” I posted earlier two quick disagreements with the piece, or what was said in the piece.
First this item:
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog