Post-trial Tag Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Post-trial duties

January 9, 2011 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

NMCCA has decided United States v. Owens.

The appellant asserts that the attorney-client relationship with his detailed trial defense counsel was terminated without good cause, leaving the appellant legally and factually without post-trial representation. The basis for the appellant’s claim is that substitute counsel failed to establish an attorney-client relationship with the appellant prior to receipt of the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR).

The court makes clear in footnote 3, that:

Clemency and parole

December 4, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

PTA provisions depriving an appellant of parole and clemency consideration under generally applicable procedures are unenforceable under R.C.M. 705(c)(1)(B). United States v. Tate, 64 M.J. 269, 272 (C.A.A.F. 2007).

And while we are on the Coast Guard

November 25, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

There are several decisions:

United States v. Sanchez is back with the same result. There was a time when the SJAR used to be a long and complete and thorough briefing sheet to the commander acting post-trial. Because of a very very few lost cases on post-trial delay and the amount of work required the SJAR has developed into a “I read the case, approve it.” Thus the “advice” has been moved behind closed doors. Can anyone imagine that when a CO wants to talk about granting clemency on a case she doesn’t call in the SJA for advice which, without a written document, is unknown. Yes, we have gotten here because of all of the litigation over the years because of inaccurate or erroneous advice. So, rather than enforce giving “balanced” (see Sanchez), accurate, and correct advice we now have a situation where the CO gets as much unbalanced, potentially biased, and potentially wrong information as the SJA is able to give. What a cure. But the defense does have a role to play in this.

It seems to me that trial defense counsel should go back to the earlier SJAR forms and create a macro document similar to that old SJAR. A tasker for the chief defense counsels at their next annual meeting. Have the paralegal go through the ROT and other documents and basically fill in the data. The CO isn’t going to read through the ROT and the SJA can’t be relied upon to tell her the good stuff. For that matter, why not start the document prior to trial. That way you can prepare for trial better. You are already working on the I-Love-Me book, and the paralegal is often working on the index, so why not go a little further. The AF has a good start with their PDS that’s prepared for court.

DON ROT’s

October 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a link to the 29 September 2010, JAGINST 5813.1B, Standardization of General Courts-Martial and Special Courts-Martial Verbatim and Summarized Records of Trial.

Pretrial negotiations and IAC

October 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Thanks to LawProfsBlog here is a link to an interesting article:

Regulating the Plea-Bargaining Market: From Caveat Emptor to Consumer Protection

Stephanos Bibas, University of Pennsylvania Law School, U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-33, California Law Review, Vol. 99, Forthcoming

New ACCA case

August 29, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

ACCA has released an unpublished opinion in United States v. Delagarza. It’s an odd case.

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of violating a general order, false official statement, and two specifications of larceny (from his fellow soldiers), in violation of Articles 92, 107, and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 907, and 921 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eighteen months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The military judge further recommended that only twelve months of confinement be approved, if appellant made full restitution. The convening authority, as an act of clemency, limited confinement to fifteen months, and otherwise approved the adjudged sentence.

In his brief, appellant raises one assignment of error, post-trial ineffective assistance of counsel, which warrants discussion, but no relief. (Emphasis added.)

Newby decided at CGCCA

July 27, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Newby has been decided and has a reminder for trial defense counsel.

The military judge made a clemency recommendation.

The SJAR failed to note the clemency recommendation.

Curses, now what

June 28, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Gannet News While he still vacillates between regret and indignity over what happened in Iraq, he has given up thoughts of going back to retrieve a separate bundle of money that he says he found and buried in the sands — and Army investigators never discovered.

Army Times reports:

Less than two years ago, Earl Coffey stood on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, a broken man, holding his Army uniform, photos and military medals in his hands.

The son of Kentucky coal miners, Coffey had watched his life unravel after his theft of a dictator’s desert treasure became an almost biblical curse — running through his hands like sand, landing him in prison and sending him on a downward spiral of homelessness, divorce and drug addiction.

With nothing left, Coffey tossed the remnants of his 13-year Army career into the surf — and began a long walk home to the Appalachian mountains of Harlan County, Ky. . .

Coffey, 36, has since rebuilt a quiet life among the coal mines that he escaped by joining the Army — only to become one of seven U.S. soldiers convicted in 2003 of “looting and pillaging” for his part in stealing the $586,000 in cash he found in one of Saddam Hussein’s bombed-out Iraqi palaces.

Post-trial administrative discharges

June 23, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

CAAF’s journal for 22 June 2010 notes:

No. 10-0468/AR. U.S. v. Sonya M. WATSON. CCA 20080175. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT APPELLANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE WAS VOIDABLE AND PROPERLY REVOKED AND DID NOT REMIT THE ADJUDGED DISMISSAL.

Collateral consequences – sex offenders

January 27, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Haven’t posted on this for a while. There’s a lot going on out there in terms of state and federal litigation. A significant issue relates to the types of restrictions on a sex offender.

So, what are the limits on computer and technology use for those convicted of sex offenses?

Although rules may vary, many state lawmakers have begun to advocate for ways to limit sex offenders’ use of technology to find more victims.