Army Times reports that:
Second Lt. Douglas Sofranko, a Florida National Guard officer photographed wearing a Navy SEAL Trident insignia he didn’t rate, has been relieved of his full-time duties with the Guard, and his future in the military is uncertain.
The earlier post, “Ooops I have to graduate?”, is here.
Silence.
20 August 2010 was the day to submit motions. They would have had up to the close of business.
Nothing on APF in terms of documents filed.
North County Times reports:
Nearly five years after 24 Iraqi men, women and children were slain by a Camp Pendleton squad as it searched for a roadside bomber, the last man to face criminal charges from the incident is about to go on trial.
Wuterich’s trial —- which is scheduled to start Sept. 13 and last up to three weeks[.]
A former astronaut who gained notoriety for stalking a romantic rival after driving 900 miles straight from Houston is expected to be discharged from the Navy.
A board of inquiry made up of three Navy admirals voted 3-0 Thursday give Navy Capt. Lisa Nowak an “other than honorable” discharge and downgrade her rank from captain to commander, which affects her paygrade and pension
.
In United States v. Darling, ACCA affirmed because appellant could not establish the prejudice prong of an IAC “claim.” This is worth reading for those cases where the accused is found not guilty after a contested case, but during sentencing there is a concession that the accused was actually guilty. For the defense counsel this case addresses the issues of how to do sentencing and try to get a lower sentence.
Appellate defense counsel initially raised one assignment of error to this court – that appellant’s conviction for uttering checks with intent to defraud was legally and factually insufficient. Upon our initial review, we specified the following issues:
I.
The Coast Guard has certified the following issues to CAAF.
No. 10-6010/CG. U. S., Appellant v. ANDREW L. DALY, Appellee. CCA 001-62-10. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:
WHETHER THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYIING THE STANDARD OF FAIR NOTICE, AS OPPOSED TO MISTAKE OF LAW, IN AFFIRMING THE MILITARY JUDGE’S FINDING THAT, UNDER COAST GUARD REGULATIONS, THE ACCUSED WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN HIS CONDUCT WAS CRIMINAL AND THEREFORE HE COULD NOT BE PUNISHED UNDE ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
In the United States v. Jones the facts cited by the court show a consent defense. However the defense counsel did not request an instruction on the affirmative defense and the military judge did not give one. There being no evidence of an affirmative waiver the findings and sentence were set aside.
A military judge has a sua sponte duty to instruct the members on an affirmative defense if it is reasonably raised by the evidence. United States v. McDonald, 57 M.J. 18, 20
(C.A.A.F. 2002). Failure by the defense counsel to request the instruction does not waive the error. United States v. Brown, 43 M.J. 187, 189 (C.A.A.F. 1995)(citing United States v. Taylor, 26 M.J. 127, 129 (C.M.A. 1988). Failure by the military judge to instruct on an affirmative defense presents a constitutional error which must be tested for prejudice. For such an error to be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the Government must prove that the members would have reached the same verdict absent the error. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 19 (1999).We agree with the appellant that the affirmative defense of consent was reasonably raised by the appellant’s sworn testimony. As noted above, the appellant posited a scenario in which the purported victim, Cpl B, was an unambiguously willing participant in the sexual contact alleged, ostensibly even the instigator and aggressor.
A reported threat by a senior Army officer to "Taser" another officer on trial for challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president could be a serious "command influence" issue that could taint the case, according to an expert.
Huffington Post has a piece about MEJA.
In the perpetual debate over legal accountability of, and prosecution if necessary, of private military and security contractors one often sees the arguments reduced to two simplistic arguments.
PMSC opponents argue the contractors argue in a legal vacuum and with utter impunity. This is, of course, as anyone who has even done the most cursory reading on the subject knows, is utter nonsense. . . .
TPMMuckracker his this update, on the alleged “threats” from LTC Brodsky.
Late Update: Margaret Hemenway of the American Patriot Foundation told TPM that the account of Brodsky’s comment and Lakin’s response came from Lakin himself. “It’s bizarre,” she added of Brodsky’s “threat,” and “looks very bad.” Hemenway continued that they’re “going to have to wait and see how they deal with this,” and suggested that the APF is anticipating some kind of disciplinary action against Brodsky. “What was he thinking?” she wondered repeatedly.
Late, Late Update Army Public Affairs Officer LTC Robert Manning told TPM that he was “there at the arraignment and I did not hear” LTC Brodsky’s alleged comments. “I was there at the proceedings the entire time,” he said, adding that the Army is “committed to ensuring that Lt. Col. Lakin receives fair treatment and due process.”
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog