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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
Allen v. United States Air Force, No. 08-3450 (8th Cir. 7 May 2010).
Joseph Allen served in the United States Air Force (Air Force) for more than twenty years, from January 14, 1985, until September 30, 2006, when he voluntarily retired and received an Honorable Discharge. During his service, on February 18, 2004, the Air Force initiated general court-martial proceedings against Allen, alleging that he took indecent liberties with a minor child and contributed to the delinquency of two minor children. The general court-martial trial began more than two years later, on March 21, 2006. Allen was convicted, and his sentence included a reduction in grade from Master Sergeant (E-7) to Senior Airman (E-4), significantly reducing his retirement benefits. Following the conviction, Allen filed a complaint against the Air Force and nineteen individuals in the District Court for the District of North Dakota, claiming that his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were violated. The district court[ 2 ] granted the Air Force’s motion for summary judgment. Allen appeals, and for the following reasons, we affirm. Allen also moves to supplement the record, and we deny his motion.
Following his conviction, Allen requested that the court-martial’s findings and sentence be set aside and that the charge and specifications be dismissed because the military judge should have granted Allen’s motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy trial or due process rights. In a memorandum, the Director of the Air Force Judiciary, Colonel Roberta Moro, acting pursuant to Article 69 of the UCMJ, reviewed the record of the court-martial, determined that no relief was warranted and declined to send the case to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals because the court-martial’s findings and sentence were supported by law. On September 30, 2006, Allen voluntarily retired from the Air Force and received an Honorable Discharge.
Blogger Rainier4311 has a piece on LTC Lakin which is critical of Anderson Cooper’s interview. Regardless of the merits of the interview, the piece contains some interesting and uninformed comments on the military legal system.
This Article 138 discovery process must be done. LTC Lakin now has the right to discovery based on the Articles of the UCMJ. The United States Army is attempting to prosecute LTC Lakin just to cover their tracks because the Army has put other personnel out because of their refusal to deploy because the erroneously accused wanted proof of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.
In all reason, the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility must be put to bed. Under Article 138, he is bound by both federal laws to prove his birth, and since he is, by all accounts the Commander in Chief, he is also bound by the UCMJ.
The American Academy of Forensic Sciences has made some recommendations to Congress for legislation to reform forensic laboratories that obtain federal funds directly or through an organization (such as DoD) that receives federal funding.
Preliminary Outline of Draft Forensic Reform Legislation – 5/5/10.
Thanks GR.
The Capital reports that:
Standout slotback Marcus Curry, whose off-field behavior drew as much attention as his on-field exploits, has been dismissed from the Naval Academy football team.
Curry was charged with an unauthorized absence for failing to be in his dormitory room in Bancroft Hall when required.
New York Post reports that:
If she can’t have justice for her slain soldier husband, she’d at least like a Purple Heart.
New York widow Barbara Allen is battling the National Guard for withholding the military honor from her husband, who was killed in 2005 while serving in Iraq.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog