The new Mil. R. Evid. may not apply to any offense committed prior to it’s effective date? Is there an argument that application to an offense prior to the effective date violates the ex-post facto clause. See Calder v. Bull, 100 U.S. 1 (1798). Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states in…
Continue reading ›In addition to oral argument in Vazquez (link to argument here), the court issued several opinions of relevance to military trial and appellate practitioners: what are the “rules” and standards for IAC in regard to pretrial negotiations. Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. the Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals of…
Continue reading ›The NMCCA has issued a published opinion in United States v. Walker. This case began its appellate life with a death penalty sentence. In 2008, this court issued an opinion, United States v. Walker, 66 M.J. 721 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2008), in which we affirmed one of the findings of guilty to violating Article 118, UCMJ, except…
Continue reading ›NMCCA has decided United States v. Walton. In that case they dismissed an adultery and indecent language conviction based on Fosler, without discussion of the issue. I sort of assume they feel comfortable that Lansford, Gibson (which I posted here) and Leubecker (which I posted here) sufficiently explain NMCCA’s thinking on how to deal with…
Continue reading ›CAAF has decided three cases, Blazier of course being one of them. I was the trial defense counsel in the case so no comment from me on the case so far. Here is the brief for petitioner in Bullcoming v. New Mexico. Professor Friedman has posted this at his excellent confrontationblog site. I had anticipated…
Continue reading ›There are several decisions: United States v. Sanchez is back with the same result. There was a time when the SJAR used to be a long and complete and thorough briefing sheet to the commander acting post-trial. Because of a very very few lost cases on post-trial delay and the amount of work required the…
Continue reading ›CAAF has decided United States v. Alston. Whether the military judge, over appellant’s objection, erroneously instructed the panel that aggravated sexual assault was a LIO of rape by force. No; elements test applied, see United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465, 472 (C.A.A.F. 2010).
Continue reading ›Navy. 1. United States v. Curry. This is a BAH case. The Government proceeded on a theory of a fraudulent marriage as a basis to commit larceny by trick. The court held oral argument in this case and specified two additional issues to the parties.2 Additional pleadings were later filed. After carefully considering the record…
Continue reading ›United States v. Brown is a good reminder of waiver of motions in pretrial agreements. The typical waiver is that the accused will “waive all waivable motions.” This seems something of an oxymoron. The provision is consistent with the idea that all nonjurisdictional motions are waived on a guilty plea unless there is a conditional…
Continue reading ›The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has issued an opinion in United States v. Hull. The issues on appeal are: whether the staff judge advocate (SJA) erred by advising the convening authority (CA), pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1106, that no new trial was warranted and whether the CA erred by failing to…
Continue reading ›
