In United States v. Urieta, The appellant, a specialist in the U.S. Army, was charged with multiple sexual assault offenses and a false official statement. During voir dire at his court-martial, he challenged the selection of Sergeant First Class (SFC) Bravo as a panel member, arguing actual and implied bias based on SFC Bravo’s statements…
Continue reading ›Reasonable doubt is the fundamental pillar protecting the rights of accused service members in a court martial. It is a legal standard that ensures a fair and just process and safeguards against the potential for wrongful convictions. The prosecutor must prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, a crucial safeguard against false convictions. The BRD…
Continue reading ›In this earlier blog, I commented on the pending litigation over unanimous verdicts at courts-martial. As military defense lawyers we continue to support the advice given that the issue should be raised in all courts going forward. The update is that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has decided United States v. Anderson.…
Continue reading ›Military lawyers know that since the Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana, the U. S. military is the only federal jurisdiction that does not require unanimous findings of guilt. Currently, a military jury (called a Panel of Members) must have eight members in a general court-martial (12 if it’s a death penalty case) and four…
Continue reading ›Thanks to Prof. Berman at Sentencing Law 7 Policy who directs us to Murray, Brian, Are Collateral Consequences Deserved? (January 29, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract= I have a standard sex offender registration motion that I use in all cases in which a sex offense is charged and if convicted the client will have to…
Continue reading ›The SCOTUS might soon give us an idea on the subject of jury nullification in Lee v. United States. Issue: Whether it is always irrational for a noncitizen defendant with longtime legal resident status and extended familial and business ties to the United States to reject a plea offer notwithstanding strong evidence of guilt when…
Continue reading ›SCOTUSBlog has an interesting post about the court’s relist practice. Some of us discussed the relist option when the court was considering the petition in United States v. Sullivan, 74 M.J. 448 (C.A.A.F. 2015) cert. denied. When last we wrote about the statistics of relists a little over a year ago, it was to report…
Continue reading ›The petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed in Sullivan v. United States, CGCMG 0285 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 25 September 2014)(unpub.), 74 M.J. 448 (C.A.A.F. 2014).
Continue reading ›The Real Cost Of Having Commanders In Charge Of Military Justice This article has appeared in Task & Purpose as a result of United States v. Woods, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on 18 June 2015. Incredibly, a senior naval officer was appointed to be the president of a court-martial…
Continue reading ›The Coast Guard has an interesting opinion in United States v. Sullivan, on a members panel stacking. A military accused does not have the same “jury” right as a civilian accused, but he does have the right to a panel (jury) that is fair and impartial. United States v. Roland, 50 M.J. 66, 68 (1999);…
Continue reading ›
