UCMJ Tag Archives — Page 30 of 50 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Historical resource

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

The Army has a new and interesting addition to their Military Legal Resources.

Selected Papers of Edmund M. Morgan, Jr., Regarding the Drafting of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (1948-1949).

In the summer of 1948, in response to a need for a uniform military justice system in the newly reorganized and expanded post-World War II defense establishment, Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal appointed a committee to draft a uniform code of military justice (UCMJ). Secretary Forrestal selected Gordon Gray (Assistant Secretary of the Army), W.John Kenney (Under Secretary of the Navy), and Eugene M. Zuckert (Assistant Secretary of the Air Force) for the committee. He also selected Felix E. Larkin (Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Defense) as Executive Secretary to this committee—known as the "Forrestal Committee"—and appointed Harvard Law professor Edmund Morris Morgan, Jr. (1879-1966) as chair.

Up periscope – WE100410

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

1. SEALS:

Kokomo Perspective reports that:

Rep. Burton issued the following statement after the Navy dropped several charges against two Navy SEALs who are accused of mistreating terrorist mastermind Ahmed Hashim Abed, the man believed to be responsible for the infamous mutilations of four American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004.

Birthers and de facto officers

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

Oooops, even his own family appears to be dissing’ him according to this report from The Greeley Tribune.

His Greeley relatives are putting distance between themselves and his birther campaign.

Lakin’s father Frank told the Greeley Tribune Friday that his son’s video wasn’t representative of the family. “This does not reflect the opinions or the attitude of the family by any means,” he said. “We’re Obama supporters.”

Hennis convicted in 2hrs 45 minutes of deliberations

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

FayObserver reports:

A military jury has found Army Master Sgt. Timothy B. Hennis guilty of three specifications of pre-meditated murder.

The members of the court-martial panel returned with their verdict about 10:35 a.m. They had deliberated for two hours and 45 minutes over Wednesday and today

Up periscope

April 7, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Gazette.com reports that:

An Army prosecutor Tuesday opened the trial of an Iraq war veteran by accusing him of the “ultimate betrayal” — raping a comrade’s wife.

Spc. Philip C. Vermeiren, 28, is accused of assaulting the woman early Oct. 31 during an alcohol-fueled party at the Fort Carson apartment she shared with her husband.

Forensic science?

April 5, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

This is likely a duplicate post, but it’s worth it anyway. Here again is a piece from my old Crim. Law prof about forensics.

Paul C. Giannelli (Case Western Reserve University School of Law) (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming, Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-6) has posted Daubert and Forensic Science: The Pitfalls of Law Enforcement Control of Scientific Research on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a landmark report on forensic science: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The Report represents one of the most important developments in forensic science since the establishment of the crime laboratory in the 1920s. Within months, Justice Scalia cited the report in Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, noting that “[s]erious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials” and “[f]forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.” After two years of studying fingerprints, handwriting, ballistics, and other common forensic techniques, the Academy concluded that “some forensic science disciplines are supported by little rigorous systematic research to validate the discipline’s basic premises and techniques.” Indeed, “only nuclear DNA analysis has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between an evidentiary sample and a specific individual or source.”

SEAL case update

April 3, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Petty Officer Keefe’s trial is scheduled to commence in Iraq on 17 April 2010.

Here is an excellent review, by Dwight “ML” Sullivan at CAAFLog on the political posturing, pseudo-lawyering, and plain gaffs about these cases.

First SEAL prosecution imminent

Search & seizure

April 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here’s a case from New Jersey of some interest, Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 N.J. LEXIS 241 (March 30, 2010).

[W]e find that Stengart had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails she exchanged with her attorney on Loving Care’s laptop.

Stengart plainly took steps to protect the privacy of those e-mails and shield them from her employer. She used a personal, password-protected e-mail account instead of her company e-mail address and did not save the account’s password on her computer. In other words, she had a subjective expectation of privacy in messages to and from her lawyer discussing the subject of a future lawsuit.

Up periscope

March 31, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

eNews Park Forest reports.

Last August, Travis Bishop refused to serve in Afghanistan. Having filed for Conscientious Objector (CO) status, Bishop, based at Fort Hood, Texas, in the US Army’s 57th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, was court-martialed and sentenced to 12 months in a military brig. He was released from the brig today.

Bishop served his time in Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Lewis, Washington. This military brig is notorious for being a particularly difficult jail to serve time.

Supremes on Padilla v. Kentucky (and Denedo?)

March 31, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Padilla v. Kentucky, which addresses the duty to inform a client of the collateral consequences of the conviction on their immigrant status. I have posted on this in connection with United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006) and other cases: here, here, here, and here. Here’s a link to Padilla on SCOTUSWiki. There are important consequences for military practitioners because as I have pointed out, there are thousands of green-card holders serving in the military. Here are a some highlights – more later.

Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed here.

So, to what extent does Padilla impact Denedo? Here is the SCOTUSWiki link to the Supreme Court litigation in Denedo. Here is a link to Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). Here is a link to United States v. Denedo, in which N-MCCA denied Denedo relief again.