Marine Corps Times reports that:
A Camp Pendleton Marine whose murder conviction was recently overturned was released Monday after serving four years in prison for a major Iraqi war crimes case, his lawyer said.
An emotional Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins III vowed to be the best Marine he could be while he waits for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review his case, defense lawyer Babu Kaza told The Associated Press after leaving the closed hearing at Camp Pendleton.
United States v. Daly.
Initially the accused was charged with violating a CG Personnel Manual regulation (about personal relationships) under Article 134, UCMJ. After some discussion of preemption issues (Dwight-san?), the charge was amended to remove the violation of a lawful order language. Then the defense challenged the charge on the basis of failure to state an offense and notice. After litigating the issue the military judge dismissed the charges, and the government appealed.
There is an interesting discussion of the CG Personnel Manual’s categorization of personal relationships into acceptable, unacceptable, and prohibited. Apparently the evidence put the accused’s conduct into the unacceptable. Unacceptable conduct is to be dealt with administratively only.
CAAFLog has posted a link to the denial of certiorari in Pendergrass v. Indiana. When the Supremes, or any appellate court, denies a petition this is what I usually think of. Probably need to update my trial notebook because there must be a more recent “quote?” Stern & Gressman must be past a 7th edition?
[D]enial of a petition for writ of certiorari . . . simply means that fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review a decision of the lower court as a matter "of sound judicial discretion." A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the same petition different reasons may lead different Justices to the same result.. . . Inasmuch, therefore, all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court’s views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated. United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482 (1923). See also, Evans and Jordan v. Stephens, et. al., 544 U.S. 942, n.1 (2005)("Nothing is more basic to the functioning of this Court than an understanding that denial of certiorari is occasioned by a variety of reasons which precludes the implication that were the case here the merits would go against the petitioner"); and see, Stern & Gressman, Supreme Court Practice, 7th ed., para. 5.7.
So, what will CAAF do about Blazier?
An Air Force major from Ramstein Air Base was given four months in jail and a reprimand for marijuana use, according to base officials. At a court-martial at Ramstein earlier this month, Maj. Timothy Reburn pleaded guilty to using marijuana last summer at or near the air base, according to information provided by Ramstein’s legal office.
And:
Here are several interesting “comments” on LTC Lakin’s case.
Mr. Harrington [infra] references and links to Cody Robert Judy;
candidate for U.S. Senate from Utah and former presidential candidate, [who] has filed an Amicus Curiae brief with the U.S. Army on behalf of Lt. Col. Lakin.
Here is the granted issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF FILE NAMES FOUND ON APPELLANT’S COMPUTER THAT WERE SUGGESTIVE OF HAVING CONTAINED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY BUT WHOSE ACTUAL CONTENT WAS UNKNOWN, ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO ARGUE APPELLANT’S PROPENSITY OR MOTIVE TO COMMIT SODOMY OR INDECENT ACTS WITH A MINOR.
AP reports that:
Five soldiers from the same Washington state-based unit have now been implicated in the killing of three Afghan civilians, an Army spokeswoman said Monday.
The Army said Friday that Spc. Jeremy Morlock had been charged with three counts of premeditated murder and one count of assault.
Officer to Army: See you in court, is the title of a posting to World Net Daily. The piece also links to the new video release. I did not see a new confession, merely a continuance of his supposed reasons for his contumacy.
He cited a long list of "reasonable arguments" raising questions about whether Obama was born on American soil.
Assuming arguendo that there are reasonable questions about President Obama’s citizenship, the questions remain irrelevant to LTC Lakin’s court-martial.
The AFCCA has issued its opinion in the relook at United States v. Rose. The court comes to the same conclusion that the defense counsel advice to the client about sex offender registration was wrong and IAC. The initial decision at AFCCA is here, and CAAF’s 28 October 2009 journal entry and order is here.
The statements of the appellant’s civilian defense counsel clearly attempt to minimize the seriousness of the indecent assault charges and assure the appellant that he would not have to register as a sex offender. In his testimony at the DuBay hearing, Mr. NC, the appellant’s civilian defense counsel, repeatedly used such phrases as “fairly innocuous” and “just foolery” to describe the sexual assault offenses. Mr. NC claimed lack of memory on many points but, in response to questions from the military judge, did recall concluding that sex offender registration was “not really a credible concern.” Consistent with this testimony, the appellant testified that when he directly asked Mr. NC if sex offender registration would be required Mr. NC told him: “I don’t see why it would be with the allegations that were brought against you. I don’t see why that would be a registerable offense.”
Bottom line it appears AFCCA believes the defense counsel considered the statements as “affirmative misrepresentations . . . concerning significant collateral consequences.” Slip op. at 5. Rose was tried in 2005.
Uh, why is this news, as reported by Military.com? Or, when has this not been a problem?
The commander of Fort Bragg has barred the wife of an 82nd Airborne Division colonel from nearly all interaction with her husband’s brigade and the unit’s families after an investigation found her influence "detrimental to the morale and well-being of both."
Um, the colonel’s wife who treats the O-6 parking spots as hers?
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog