Oh, For Goodness Sake blog is reporting that Orly Taitz is now assisting in LTC Lakin’s defense?
A posting at A Natural Born Citizen . . . Orly? appears to indicate that one of Orly Taitz’s blogs has been taken over – I think by aliens. Oh man what a pun. She does have some blather, but apparently repetitious of some of the events in the Lakin case.
Coast Guard reports indicates that:
Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore, commander of the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, has relieved Capt. Fredrick G. Myer from his duties as commander of U.S. Coast Guard Sector Portland, Ore., Friday, citing alleged misconduct due to a violation of military regulations, specifically unauthorized use of a government computer.
Specifically, Capt. Myer was found, during an investigation, to have repeatedly viewed pornographic and other restricted internet sites on a government computer.
Introducing evidence or refreshing recollection?
TC: May I approach the witness?
MJ: Yes.
A constant frustration – how to impeach (and typically with the book is sitting there on counsel table).
Complaining Witness: Blah, blah, blah.
Defense counsel: Now Ms. Complaining Witness you received an Article 15 . . . . (“Objection,” – “Sustained.” [DC looks at judge with a ‘what did I just do’ attitude.]).
I previously posted about an Army decision to rescind GOMR’s for several officers involved in the Wanat event. [Military to open new investigation into battle that killed nine soldiers, and here.] Here are links to a two parter by Tom Ricks on Wanat in Foreign Policy:
The families respond I
Several relatives of soldiers killed at the battle of Wanat on July 13, 2008, have contacted me to express their unhappiness about the Army’s recent decision to rescind letters of reprimand to officer who oversaw that fight.
From on the road.
Marine Corps Times has this survey.
Does “drop and give me 20” cut it? Or does he warrant a tougher punishment — maybe standing at parade rest for hours at a time, or spending all night cleaning the barracks? Or would that be considered hazing?
Your client is charged with burglary, theft, and false official statement. You call a good Sailor witness. The witness testifies. Imagine the questions I asked in MJ Summer Camp I, or just as easily that there has been no prior impeachment cross-examination.
Trial counsel: LTC Witness, does a good Sailor commit burglary? No.
Trial counsel: LTC Witness, does a good Sailor commit theft? No.
United States v. Ruiz should sound familiar to most defense counsel – the basic facts that is. An adultery case becomes a rape allegation.
In particular I recommend:
Reporting the Alleged Rape
On the night of the alleged rape, after returning to the barracks, AN P did not report the rape or tell anyone what happened. Id. at 548. Seaman (SN) M testified, contrary to AN P’s testimony, that the next day, a smiling AN P pulled him aside, told him “we did it,” and explained that she and the
appellant had feelings for each other. Id. at 1146. In the next few days, AN P discovered that rumors were spreading about her being in a hotel room with the appellant. Id. at 552, 570, 592. SN C testified that he had previously counseled AN P when she told him she “liked” the appellant, a married man. Id. at 551, 676, 688. When he confronted her with the new rumors and she explained her version of events, he reported it to the command. Id. at 683. AN P testified that she would not report it because she was afraid she would get into trouble or be kicked out of the Navy for being in a hotel room with a married man. Id. at 552-55, 572, 683. AN P testified that about a week after the alleged rape, upon learning she would not get in trouble as long as she was not “cooperating” with the appellant, she reported the incident, when confronted by a SAVI advocate, a chief, and a member of law enforcement. Id. at 572. The manner in which the rape was reported raises further doubt as to why AN P made the accusation.
Here is an interesting Order in United States v. Aguilar where the court has specified an issue.
Whether assault consummated by a battery in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 928, of which the appellant was convicted, is a lesser included offense of the charged Rape by Use of Physical Violence in violation of Article 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920, if the proof does not show the assault is the alleged act of physical violence that compelled sexual intercourse.1
The footnote is:
A constant pet frustration – lack of understanding of how to impeach. Let’s look at this from a common witness situation – the good military character witness.
Witness: Blah, blah, blah.
Witness: In my opinion Private Rumpelstiltskin is a good Soldier.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog