In a court martial trial that concluded after a panel’s deliberations stretched into the early hours of Saturday morning at Andrews Joint Base, a local Airman First Class was found not guilty of the charges brought against him.
As ABC 7 News reported last week, the charges were brought against A1C Marvin Skipper, Jr., after he fell asleep a second time while on security duty–even though doctors had ordered that he not be placed on that type of duty for medical reasons.
This report from Savannah.now questions why expert payments within the 3ID claimancy take so long.
The military judge also questioned why experts for the defense continue to have difficulties obtaining payments for work done on Bozicevich’s behalf as attorneys prepare for a February 2011 capital court-martial trial.
The humor is that this is neither a new problem nor a problem limited to the 3ID, or the Army for that matter.
United States v. Foisy, __ M.J. __, No. NMCCA 201000026 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. July 20, 2010). (Thanks to an early posting of the decision by CAAFLog.)
Rodriguez and Gilbride deal with Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) rule of completeness. Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) is a longstanding rule of completeness pertaining to confessions introduced against an accused. See, United States v. Rodriguez, 56 M.J. 336, 341-42 (C.A.A.F. 2002), the rule applies to oral as well as written statements. United States v. Gilbride, 56 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2002). This is a different rule than Mil. R. Evid. 106.
In deciding the military judge erred in his application of Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2), NMCCA identified six non-exclusive factors to consider on the issue.
From on the road.
Air Force Times reports that:
Air Force officials are investigating the Wisconsin National Guard’s top commander.
Oooops, Military.com reports that:
The drug Ecstasy shows positive results in the majority of patients when used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a report coming out Monday in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
crimeandconsequences blog reports a link to:
Eugene Sullivan and Louis Freeh propose creation of a Federal District Court for Guantanamo Bay in this WaPo op-ed. Sullivan is a former CJ of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; Freeh is a former district judge and FBI Director. Their proposal would provide an Article III court and jury for trial of the terrorists without the security problems of the Administration’s initial proposal of holding the trials in New York.
Here is an new grant from CAAF.
No. 10-0494/AF. U.S. v. Caleb B. BEATY. CCA 37478. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE SENTENCE MUST BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE DETERMINED THE SENTENCE BASED ON THE INCORRECT MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT.
Federal Evidence Review has a good reminder that what may appear to be statements admissible as excited utterances may not in fact be so. Thus, defense as always your job is to ensure that the prosecution doesn’t get away with ritualistic or talismanic incantations of, “it’s an excited utterance (or some other exception)".”
United States v. Erickson, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. July 12, 2010).
In United States v. Eyster, decided by the 3rd Cir. on 14 July 2010, the appellant claimed he was improperly sentenced because the court considered a 1988 court-martial conviction for rape.
On appeal, Eyster argues that the District Court erred by increasing his criminal history from Category II to Category V, because his 1988 conviction under the UCMJ was not a qualifying prior "sex offense conviction" as defined by § 4B1.5.. . .
The Government concedes, and we agree, that Eyster’s 1988 conviction under the UCMJ was not a qualifying "sex offense conviction" for purposes of § 4B1.5. Therefore, Eyster’s advisory Guidelines range should have been calculated using criminal history Category II, not Category V. This was error[.]As explained, however, the applicable Guidelines range was the same—360 to 840 months—under either criminal history Category. Because this mistake did not result in the calculation of an incorrect Guidelines range, we conclude that it did not affect Eyster’s substantial rights.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog