UCMJ Tag Archives — Page 25 of 50 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Speedy trial

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

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.

A LTC Lakin piece

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

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.

Congressional action on forensic labs

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

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.

Up periscope WE 090510

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

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.

Martinez DP case

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

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.

LTC Lakin

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

Obama Conspiracy Theories blog has this comment on the CNN LTC Lakin interview:

Paul Jensen, tried to imply things that were false by clever irrelevancies and innuendo, but he told one outright whopper:

In the state of Hawaii there’s a statute that allows anyone born outside the state of Hawaii, including in a foreign country, to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate, at any age, by going back and filling out a form.

LTC Lakin update

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

LTC Lakin has made his CNN appearance. Courtesy of Dwight “ML” Sullivan and CAAFLog, here is a link. Like DMLS I found the comment about protecting the client somewhat odd in light of counsel’s apparent involvement in producing the video which has in effect become LTC Lakin’s public confession of an “intent” to refuse orders. As DMLS points out there is a link to Mr. Jensen’s own website, Paul Rolf Jensen . . . Lead Counsel for LTC Lakin. That certainly should be admissible as circumstantial evidence of intent as to the missing movement charge. LTC Lakin’s supporters are not happy about the CNN interview, as this piece at World News Daily indicates. Frankly I wasn’t happy with it either as a lawyer who regularly defends clients at court-martial.

I thought I’d use this case as a way to refresh ourselves on how a defense counsel should approach an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing regardless of the accused or the charges. (I HAVE CREATED A LTC LAKIN PAGE here – which I will update as a relevant event happens or I have time.)

Cooper dominated the combative interview, demanding answers from Lakin, telling his lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, to let his client answer and then forging ahead with his own arguments.

Crawford exception

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

We’ve spent a lot of time over the last months addressing Crawford issues in the context of forensic reports. Let’s not forget that there are some exceptions to Crawford and confrontation.

Professor Colin Miller writes about the co-conspirator “exception” to Crawford.

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution is violated when hearsay is "testimonial," admitted against a criminal defendant, and the hearsay declarant does not testify at the defendant’s trial, unless (1) the declarant was unavailable for trial, and (2) the defendant was previously able to cross-examine the declarant. Thus, if a statement is not testimonial, there is no problem with its admission under the Confrontation Clause. Thus, in its recent opinion in United States v. Diaz, 2010 WL 1767248 (11th Cir. 2010), the Eleventh Circuit was able to find a statement admissible without regard for the Confrontation Clause because co-conspirator admissions are non testimonial, even if they are made to confidential informants.

Humor in uniform lawyering

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

LTC Lakin has made his CNN appearance. His supporters are not happy, as this piece at World News Daily indicates.

I found a humorous note in the article. The writer points out a typo in the charge sheet.

“in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary (sic) Regiment, 101st Airborne”

Interrogations

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

Here is a new article on interrogation tactics.

Davis & Leo on the "Sympathetic Detective" Interrogation Strategy

Deborah Davis and Richard A. Leo (University of Nevada, Reno and University of San Francisco – School of Law) have posted Selling Confession: Setting the Stage with the ‘Sympathetic Detective with a Time-Limited Offer’ (Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The effectiveness of an interrogation tactic dubbed the “sympathetic detective with a time limited offer” was tested. Participants read two versions of an interrogation transcript, with and without the tactic. Those who read the sympathetic detective version believed the detective had greater authority to determine whether and with what to charge the suspect, more beneficent intentions toward the suspect, and viewed confession as more wise. However, regression analyses indicated that for innocent suspects, only perceptions of the strength of evidence against the suspect and the detective’s beneficence and authority predicted the perceived wisdom of false confession. Interrogation tactics were generally effective, as indicated by participant recommendations of confession (versus invoking Miranda, denial, or continuing to talk without admitting guilt) for both innocent (16.7%) and guilty (74.4%) suspects; and reasons offered for participants’ recommendations for confession versus other choices generally conformed to those reported by real-life confessors and interrogation scholars.