UCMJ Tag Archives — Page 21 of 51 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Courts-martial numbers down

June 12, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

CAAFLog blogged a while back about the declining numbers in Courts-Martials held. Navy Times reports this as a possible explanation for lower Navy numbers:

The overall number of sailors facing courts-martial has dropped dramatically during the past several years, Navy records show.

General courts-martial for the most serious offenses have fallen by nearly half, from 172 in 2005 to 94 last year. Court cases for lesser crimes have fallen by even more, according to data provided by the Navy’s judge advocate general.

Up periscope

June 12, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Navy Times reports that:

Two Navy chiefs will be forced to retire after helping an enlisted sailor cheat on an advancement exam, officials from the aircraft carrier George Washington told Stars and Stripes on Thursday.

OregonLive.com reports that:

Blazier update

June 11, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

CAAF’s daily journal for 10 June 2010 indicates that CAAF has allowed NIMJ to file a brief on behalf of appellant (I abstained from participation in producing said brief), and allowed NACDL to file an amicus pleading but denied NACDL leave to file an “oversized brief.”

CAAF sets aside

June 9, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

No. 10-0337/AR. U.S. v. David ANTAR. CCA 20080836. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AND NOT REOPENING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY WITHOUT QUESTIONING BOTH APPELLANT AND HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL REGARDING APPELLANT’S BIPOLAR DISORDER, HIS EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS, AND POSSIBLE MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY DEFENSE.

The decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for reconsideration of the aforementioned issue in light of United States v. Harris, 61 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2005).[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

Hutchins certification

June 9, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is the daily journal entry for Navy TJAG certification of United States v. Hutchins.

No. 10-5003/MC. U.S., Appellant v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS, Appellee. CCA 200800393. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SEVERED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH CAPTAIN BASS?

Post-trial delay

June 9, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The CGCCA has issued a per curiam opinion in United States v. Sapp., a SPCM tried at U.S.C.G. Training Center Yorktown.

Before this court, Appellant has assigned two errors: (1) This court should consider the unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay in determining the sentence that should be approved under Article 66(c); and (2) the promulgating order contains three errors. We grant sentence relief for post-trial delay and otherwise affirm. . . .

Notable delays in post-trial processing are found in the fifty-nine days apparently taken by the military judge to authenticate the record, the seventy-seven days taken after receipt of the authenticated record to produce the SJAR and send it to defense counsel, and the twenty-eight days between Convening Authority action and sending the record to Headquarters. The Memorandum forwarding the record gives no meaningful explanation for these delays, attributing them only to “administrative processing.”

AFCCA Article 62 appeal order

June 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Yesterday AFCCA issued an order in an Article 62, appeal, in United States v. Harris. There is a rather odd, perhaps bizarre, chronology. What next is the question?

Appellant charged.

Additional charges added.

Counsel’s predictions

June 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Just the other day, alerted by SCOTUSBlog I posted Jones v. Williams as a case to watch at SCOTUS. The issue once again:

Issue: Whether the Tenth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations to a defendant who was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial, on the ground that the remedy the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals gave to the defendant was constitutionally inadequate, given that the Supreme Court has not clearly established what remedy, if any, is appropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel in such a case.

Now courtesy of the New York Times here is an article that defense counsel, trial counsel, and SJA’s may want to read. It’s a cautionary tale, or perhaps just entertaining.

Up periscope

June 6, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Air Force Times reports:

A wing commander lost his job because he not only played favorites but hid unfavorable information from his bosses about a female lieutenant colonel, and recommended her for promotion, according to an Air Force investigation.

Directly from Coast Guard Report blog:

SCOTUS

June 6, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

SCOTUSBlog has the 3 June 2010 petitions to watch at SCOTUS. Here is an interesting one.

Title: Jones v. Williams
Docket: 09-948
Issue: Whether the Tenth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations to a defendant who was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial, on the ground that the remedy the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals gave to the defendant was constitutionally inadequate, given that the Supreme Court has not clearly established what remedy, if any, is appropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel in such a case.

Opinion below (10th Circuit, rehearing denied)

Petition for certiorari

Brief in opposition

Petitioner’s reply

The relevant “facts.”