UCMJ Tag Archives — Page 28 of 50 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Rapper case unwrapped

April 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here at truthout is a different perspective on the rapper case.

According to Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist, an Oakland-based organization dedicated to supporting military objectors like Hall, he was not jailed for the song, but was instead jailed "in retaliation for his formal complaint of inadequate mental health services available to him at Fort Stewart. The Army used an angry song that Spc. Hall, a combat veteran of the Iraq War suffering from post-traumatic stress, had produced criticizing the stop-loss policy as the pretext."

What put the 34-year-old New York City native in the brig were, according to Paterson, Hall’s persistent assertions of inadequate mental health care that culminated in a December 7 complaint to the Army Investigator General. Just five days after that, Hall was charged with violating "good order and discipline" at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and was shipped out of the country for a court martial in Kuwait.

Digital privacy?

April 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

SCOTUSBlog reports that:

At about 11 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in City of Ontario, et al., v. Quon, et al. (08-1332). Arguing for the California city and its police department will be Kent L. Richland of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in Los Angeles. The federal government, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal, will have 10 minutes as amicus urging reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court decision. Representing four individuals who sued the city will be Dieter C. Dammeier of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill in Upland, CA.

The ubiquitous personal electronic device — pager, cellphone, “smart phone,” PDA — is emerging as a centerpiece in Digital Age legal controversy, including constitutional disputes when a government agency gets involved in regulating the use of these convenient computer-assisted, hand-held items. The Supreme Court has taken on a case to lay down some basic constitutional ground rules on when the users of those devices — at least in government workplaces — can claim a right of privacy, and sue to enforce the right

LTC Lakin update

April 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is another viewpoint, from a civilian, about the need to court-martial LTC Lakin.

The (Greeley, CO) Tribune opinion says:

When you become a soldier of the United States of America, you lose some of your rights.
Except in extreme cases, you no longer have the right to refuse orders of superiors. You don’t have the same freedom of speech that other Americans enjoy. You serve at the pleasure of your commander in chief.
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, while exercising rights that many Americans enjoy, now needs to suffer the consequences for his actions. He has violated the requirements of his office.

Hennis update

April 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I expect we’ll see several commentary’s about the Hennis trial. Here is one from Myron Pitts, FayObserver.com, which he calls, “Evidence adds up in support of Hennis verdict.” (Along with the article is a great list of links to prior reporting on the case.)

I saw a military jury convict Hennis on April 8 and sentence him to die Thursday[.]

Hennis’ lawyer, Frank Spinner, said at the bottom of the courthouse steps that the jury never got to know his client, who did not testify. The jurors instead were treated to gruesome photos of the murder scene, he said.

Blazier and Melendez-Diaz

April 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Thanks to Professor Colin Miller for this piece.

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court recently found that certificates of state laboratory analysts are "testimonial" and thus covered by the Confrontation Clause. Thus, if the forensic analysts (or similar experts) who prepared such certificates (or similar documents) do not testify at a criminal defendant’s trial, the certificates are inadmissible. Does the prosecution, however, solve this problem by not admitting these certificates but having other experts offer their "own" conclusions based upon these certificates? That certainly seems to be the case based upon a recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and the recent opinion of the Eleventh Circuit in United States v, Winston, 2010 WL 1253809 (11th Cir. 2010).

Collateral consequences

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

Here courtesy of Sentencing Law & Policy:

This weekend’s must-read comes via this link at SSRN to a new piece by Margaret Colgate Love and Gabriel Chin concerning the Supreme Court’s important decision late last month in Padilla v. Kentucky. "Padilla v. Kentucky: The Right to Counsel and the Collateral Consequences of Conviction." Here is the abstract:

In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. (March 31, 2010), the Supreme Court broke new ground in holding in a 7-2 decision that a criminal defense lawyer had failed to provide his noncitizen client effective assistance of counsel when he did not tell him that he was almost certain to be deported if he plead guilty. It is the first time that the Court has applied the 1984 Strickland v. Washington standard to a lawyer’s failure to advise the client about a “collateral” consequence of conviction – something other than imprisonment, fine, probation and the like, that the court imposes at sentencing. While Padilla’s implications for cases involving deportation are clear, it may also require lawyers to consider many other legal implications of the plea.

Rapper case wrapped up

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

It appears that the case of the “rapper” charged with making threats through rap songs and his website has been resolved. For some weeks the case drew criticism from supporters and the public and the military attitude to free speech issues. Something that we are seeing again in regard to LTC Lakin and Sgt Gary Stein the Marine on the left coast and his MySpace page.

On the rapper, Army Times reports:

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom said Saturday that top brass decided to discharge Hall instead of taking him to trial in part because he admitted his guilt.

Evidence – eyewitness “identification”

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

Professor Colin Miller has posted an excellent piece about the current status of expert testimony about the inaccuracies of eyewitness identification.

I have done several posts on this blog (here, here, here, here, here, and here) about the inaccuracy of regular and cross-racial eyewitness identifications and whether expert testimony about this inaccuracy should be allowed. In a recent post, I noted that "My general sense is that most courts allow such expert testimony although a decent number of courts, such as the Eleventh Circuit and Minnesota courts, preclude it." That post addressed a recent opinion in which the Supreme Court of Utah reversed past precedent and allow for the admission of expert testimony on the inaccuracy of eyewitness identifications. This post addresses a recent opinion, State v. Young, 2010 WL 1286933 (La. 2010), in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana adhered to prior precedent and refused to allow for the admission of expert testimony on the inaccuracy of eyewitness identifications.

Up periscope

April 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

FayObserver reports that:

An Army major who allegedly told another soldier that his fellow jury members in an October court-martial acted improperly and with an agenda testified Thursday that he never made such an allegation.

Pvt. Justin A. Boyle – a sergeant before having his rank stripped – was convicted in October of involuntary manslaughter and conspiracy for his role in the death of Pfc. Luke Brown.

Hennis sentenced to Death

April 15, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Washington Post reports that:

A military jury has sentenced a soldier to die for killing a North Carolina mother and her two children in 1985.