UCMJ Tag Archives — Page 32 of 50 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Up periscope WE 270310

March 27, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

This remarkable local story out of Montana, which is headlined "Man blames PTSD for child pornography downloads," reports on another notable sentence break given to a notable child porn offense. Here are the details, which spotlight many of the hottest issues in current federal sentencing debates:

An Iraq war veteran in Helena, who claimed that post-traumatic stress disorder contributed to his viewing child pornography, was sentenced Tuesday to two years in federal prison, to be followed by 10 years of supervised probation.

Extraterritoriality

March 26, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I posted the other day about an 11th Circuit decision on extra-territoriality of 18 U. S. Code 2251A. Here is an article, courtesy of CrimProfBlog that may be of some interest on that subject.

Jeffrey A. Meyer (Quinnipiac University – School of Law) has posted Dual Illegality and Geoambiguous Law: A New Rule for Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Law (Minnesota Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN.

Scores of federal criminal and civil statutes are “geoambiguous” – they do not say whether they apply to conduct that takes place in foreign countries. This is a vital concern in an age of exploding globalization. The Supreme Court regularly recites a “presumption against extraterritoriality” but just as often overlooks it and opts to apply geoambiguous law abroad. The Court’s inconsistency bespeaks a deep divide among scholars. Judicial unilateralists favor liberally imposing U.S. law abroad to respond to unwanted effects from foreign conduct. Judicial territorialists favor restraint and a return to traditional territoriality to avoid international conflict. And judicial interests-balancers favor multi-factored, case-by-case consideration of whether it is “reasonable” to apply geoambiguous law abroad.
This Article advances a new approach – a proposed rule of “dual illegality” to govern how courts apply geoambiguous laws. Under a dual illegality rule, U.S. courts should decline to apply geoambiguous laws to penalize or regulate conduct that occurs in the territory of a foreign state unless the same conduct is also illegal or similarly regulated by the law of the foreign territorial state. A similar rule of dual illegality has worked for many decades as a limitation in countless criminal extradition treaties. A dual illegality rule would revitalize traditional territoriality values as a limiting principle on U.S. assertion of its law abroad, while also allowing extraterritoriality when there is the least likelihood of provoking political dispute. The response to greater globalization should be less jurisdictional contestability and more reliance on rules that do not invite judges – as the rules wrongly do now – to engage in policy-like assessments of the needs or interests of the United States in having its law applied to activity abroad. Courts should apply a dual illegality rule to decide the scope of geoambiguous law.

Crime Labs

March 26, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I’ve posted before about issues with forensic testing and police controlled laboratories (including military drug testing laboratories). Here is an article from my old crim law professor, a former Army JA. You’ve also heard me frequently talk about confirmatory bias in regard to police investigations and other investigations.

Paul C. Gianelli, Independent Crime Laboratories: The Problem of Motivational and Cognitive Bias, to be published in the Utah Law Review.

One of the most controversial recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science — Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: The Path Forward — concerns the removal of crime laboratories from the administrative control of law enforcement agencies. For decades scholars have commented on the “inbred bias of crime laboratories affiliated with law enforcement agencies.” Some commentators have proposed independent laboratories as the remedy for this problem, and in 2002, the Illinois Governor’s Commission on Capital Punishment proposed the establishment of an independent state crime laboratory. This essay documents the problems that triggered the NAS Report’s recommendation. It also examines the counter arguments as well as alternative approaches, including additional measures that should protect forensic analyses from improper influence.

Evidence notes

March 26, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Thanks to Federal Evidence Review for a good summary of cases and issues involving 404(b) issues in federal courts.

Update on the rapper

March 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

FoxNews reports that:

Hall, a soldier out of Fort Stewart in Georgia, recorded a rap song last July called “Stop Loss” after he was notified that his military contract was being extended. Army soldiers who are “stop-lossed” must complete additional tours of duty.

In his song, Hall raps about walking up to soldiers and “surprising them all” with 30 rounds set to a “three-round burst.” Another lyric says: “Still against the war / I grab my M4/ Spray and watch all the bodies hit the floor/ I bet you’ll never stop-loss nobody no more.”

Does 18 U.S. Code 2251A apply extraterritorially

March 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Thanks to OpinoJuris for pointing us to the 11th Circuit decision in United States v. Frank. You will recollect that CAAF has found that the CP related statutes don’t apply overseas. Here is part of the OJ summary.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the conviction finding that (1) Miranda warnings were unnecessary; (2) the statute applied extraterritorially; and (3) the “purchase” of a child may occur through payment directly to the child, rather than a third party.

The Court found that generally, “statements obtained by foreign officers conducting interrogations in their own nations have been held admissible despite a failure to give Miranda warnings to the accused.” The reasoning behind this rule is that the exclusion of evidence by an American court has little to no deterrent effect on foreign police practices. That is, our “Constitution cannot compel such specific, affirmative action by foreign sovereigns.” Moreover, the joint venture exception does not apply because American officials did not know of Frank’s presence in Cambodia until after he was arrested and did not participate in Frank’s detention or interrogation.

CAAF’s put out an opinion in Blazier

March 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Blazier. Here are the relevant portions of the opinion written by Judge Ryan for the moment.

This case presents the question whether the admission of drug testing reports” over defense objection violated Appellant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The antecedent question, whether certain admitted evidence was testimonial, we answer affirmatively, and contrary to the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), United States v. Blazier, 68 M.J. 544 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2008).

Having resolved the threshold question, and given the ubiquity of drug testing within the
military, we conclude that additional briefing is warranted prior to final disposition of the case.

Wuterich’s partial good news

March 23, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

North County Times reports:

That the military judge “ruled prosecutors must show beyond a reasonable doubt that unlawful command influence hasn’t tainted the manslaughter case against a Camp Pendleton Marine accused of taking part in the 2005 slayings of 24 Iraqi civilians.” This means the defense was successful so far in showing sufficient evidence to shift the burden to the prosecution to prove no UCI.

Wuterich Haditha update

March 22, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Marine Corps Times reports:

Eight Marines were charged in the biggest criminal case against U.S. troops to arise from the Iraq war. Six have had charges dismissed, and one was acquitted.

Whether the only remaining and perhaps highest-profile defendant stands trial may hinge on what happens this week in a military courtroom.

CAAF affirms United States v. Ferguson

March 22, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Ferguson

We granted review to determine whether the military judge erred by accepting Appellant’s guilty plea to indecent exposure. We hold that there is no substantial basis in law or fact to
question Appellant’s plea to indecent exposure and affirm the judgment of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA).

The indecent exposure and other acts happened over the internet, primarily via webcam.