United States v. Holmes. On direct appeal the NMCCA set aside the original findings of guilty to negligent homicide and the sentence. A rehearing on sentence was authorized for the remaining guilty finding of false official statement. The CA found a rehearing was impractical and approved a punishment of “no punishment.”
Continue reading ›CAAF has decided United States v. Bagstad. Judge Stuckey wrote for himself, Effron and Ryan, with Baker writing a dissent for himself and Erdmann. We granted review to determine whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying Appellant’s challenge for cause against Captain (Capt) Stojka, who sat with his subordinate on a court-martial panel…
Continue reading ›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…
Continue reading ›United States v. Bond. Before this court, Appellant has assigned the following errors: I. The military judge erred when he denied the defense motion to dismiss Charges I and III for prior jeopardy. II. An unsuspended bad-conduct discharge is an inappropriately severe punishment for the crimes of which Appellant was convicted. III. Appellant’s Fifth and…
Continue reading ›NMCCA has it’s opinion in United States v. Denedo, the petition for error coram nobis that his been winding its way through the courts, include the United States Supreme Court. Essentially the court finds that even if there were IAC, petitioner has not established prejudice. Back to CAAF? As it stands, the case represents a…
Continue reading ›CAAF has decided two cases related to Abu Ghraib: United States v. Harman, and United States v. Smith. The issue in Harman was factual sufficiency and the conviction and sentence was affirmed. Appellant admitted to investigators that she took a new detainee, who had been placed on a box with a hood over his head,…
Continue reading ›United States v. Matthews is an interesting new Army decision. In this case the appellate courts ordered a DuBay hearing. During that hearing the prior military judge testified as to his rationale for various decisions at trial. Using that testimony, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals applied the harmless beyond reasonable doubt standard to findings…
Continue reading ›At this point, the military judge interjected and asked 11 foundational questions of the witness. The questions were limited to Major D’s past service as an enlisted Marine in the same MOS as the appellant, his supervisory responsibilities as a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant within that MOS, the total number of years he served within…
Continue reading ›The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals released today its en banc decision in United States v. Medina, No. 200900053, __ M.J. __ (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2009). The main portion of the opinion focuses on Art. 120. The majority finds Art. 120 facially constitutional, citing United States v. Crotchett, __ M.J. ___,…
Continue reading ›CAAF has decided United States v. Campbell, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009). We granted review of three issues raised by the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), as follows: I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REASSESSING APPELLANT’S SENTENCE, AS (1) ITS REASSESSMENT CALCULUS WAS BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS…
Continue reading ›
