UCMJ Tag Archives — Page 24 of 50 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

NMCCA on Quintanilla

May 19, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

in which he sought to have the court overturn the ruling of the military judge at his sentencing rehearing to the effect that Life Without Parole (LWOP) is not an authorized
sentence in his case. Alternatively, the petitioner requested that this court direct the military judge to grant the petitioner’s motion allowing him to waive his right to clemency and parole following sentence, so that he can more easily reach a pretrial agreement with the convening authority.

Proverbs 18-17

May 17, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The King James (UK) version of Proverbs 18-17 says: He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

The King James (Am.) version says: He that is first in his own cause seems just; but his neighbor comes and searches him.

The New Living Testament (2007) says: The first to speak in court sounds right–until the cross-examination begins.

Humor in uniform lawyering

May 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The accused is charged with indecent assault on a complaining witness and rape on another complaining witness.

Member: Sir I’m the unit victim advocate. Individual voir dire continues blah, blah, blah.

Def: The defense objects on implied bias and liberal grant mandate.

Sex offender registration (updated)

May 13, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

There’s been lots of litigation about SORNA. But now, courtesy of Sentencing Law & Policy we learn that DOJ has some recommendations for amending SORNA.

You will be interested to know that this morning the U.S. Department of Justice issued proposed supplemental guidelines modifying several requirements for compliance with SORNA. Many address concerns raised by the states and other stakeholders. They do the following:

Gives jurisdictions discretion to exempt juvenile offenders from public website posting

Provides information concerning the review process for determining that jurisdictions have substantially implemented

Gives jurisdictions discretion to modify the retroactive registration requirement to apply to new felony convictions only

Provides mechanisms for newly recognized tribes to elect whether to become SORNA registration jurisdictions and to implement SORNA

Expands required registration information to include the forms signed by sex offenders acknowledging that they were advised of their registration obligations

Requires jurisdictions to exempt sex offenders’ e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers from public website posting

Requires jurisdictions to have sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance

Clarifies mechanism for interjurisdictional information sharing and tracking.

(update) Here is a link to the 14 May 2010 entry in the Federal Register.

LTC Lakin’s contumacy

May 13, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

safeguardourconstitution reports that: “Obama Administration unleashes Army lawyers instead of releasing birth certificate.” This is shameful hyperbole and utterly incorrect.

LTC Lakin is alleged to have committed offenses in violation of the UCMJ. The conduct alleged cuts to the very heart of military requirements of obedience to orders, fidelity to the oath of office, and the need for seniors to set the example. I’m reliably informed that in addition to formal counselings every effort was made pre-preferral to convince LTC Lakin to obey his orders. In the face of such contumacious behavior the Army had no choice but to prefer charges. Enlisted personnel are regularly disciplined, court-martialed, and jailed for the same or similar conduct and who have better reasons for their AWOL. Such a stunning lack of officership cannot pass unnoticed or undisciplined. Neither President Obama nor his administration has any role in this case at all. Should the administration try to get involved they should be told – politely – to butt out.

LTC Lakin update

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

Safeguardourconstitution reports that the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing is scheduled for 11 June 2010.

The report links to a letter to MAJ Kemkes (a great TDS lawyer from Fort Myer) granting a delay of the hearing from 6 May to 11 June.

approval_of_delay_for_art32_hearing

LTC Driscoll, a lawyer, is the IO. The use of non-lawyers as IO is pretty standard within the Army. Thanx CAAFLog for the update.

Hasan update 9

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

KVUE.com reports that:

The attorney representing the accused gunman in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings says the Army is holding back important evidence in the upcoming Article 32 hearing.

Attorney John Galligan says he needs court documents, including Major Nidal Hasan’s FBI files, to gain more insight into his mental state in the months leading up to the shooting.

Waiving appellate review

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

There has been quite a bit of discussion recently of waiving appellate review as part of a pretrial agreement.

Here is a timely article from the ABA about this important topic (thanks to Sentencing Law & Policy for the link).

Ellis & Bussert, Stemming the Tide of Postconviction Waivers, 25 (1) Crim. Justice, Spring 2010, ABA.

Collateral consequences – Sex Offender Registration

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

The advice to an accused about sexual offender registration is complicated. Cases such as Williams v. Lee and Keathley, No. ED 93827, from the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Five, decided May 4, 2010. This is a retroactivity case.

On February 5, 2000, Williams pled guilty in a military tribunal to one specification of carnal knowledge under Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ"), and one specification of sodomy with a child under the age of 16 in violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ. No law — Missouri, federal, or military — required Williams to register as a sex offender at the time of his convictions.

However, with the passage of SORNA to police went out and required registration. But,

U. S. v. Roach-CAAF

May 10, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Roach has been returned to AFCCA for a second time.

Initially the case was sent back because appellant’s case was decided before his counsel submitted a brief, and because the chief judge on his panel had made some public comments relating to the case.

This time the case goes back because the chief judge also recommended his temporary successor for the Roach case, thus violating the principal that a recused judge should have no further contact with the case.