The UCMJ: A Frankensteined Military Justice Over the past decade, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has undergone significant change. Driven by headline-grabbing scandals and shifting political winds, Congress has stitched together a Frankensteinian monster of legislation, leaving a system with contradictions, unintended consequences, and a looming shadow over due process. A History of…
Continue reading ›The recent firing of Brigadier General Warren Wells, the Army’s first-ever lead special trial counsel, casts a shadow of doubt over the future of the special trial counsel and the defense counsel in the military justice system. While Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth cited a “loss of trust and confidence” stemming from an old…
Continue reading ›This week we received the decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals of a client accused of homosexual sexual assaults. He had been convicted and sentenced to 14 years of confinement. We raised many issues during his appeal. The Army Court found a serious error by the military judge in denying the defense presenting…
Continue reading ›On December 6, 2023, the Secretary of the Army, Ms. Christine Wormuth, fired Brigadier General (BG) Warren Wells, the Army’s chief prosecutor and head of the Office of the Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), for an email he had sent ten years prior while in a defense counsel role. This firing demonstrates that no military defense…
Continue reading ›The Secretary of the Navy has issued a significant change to Article 15/NJP procedures for service personnel assigned to or embarked on a vessel. The Navy’s vessel exception is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that allows the Navy to deny service members the right to demand a court-martial instead of nonjudicial…
Continue reading ›The UCMJ makes it an offense under Article 107 to: Sign a false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, when you knew it was false; or Make any verbal/oral false official statement when you knew it was false. Your military defense counsel will tell you that the prosecution has to prove the following:…
Continue reading ›United States v. Filmore. 1. If a victim testifies on sentencing–the rules of evidence apply the same as any other witness. Article 6b does not waive the rules of evidence when a victim testifies in sentencing. (Note, the victim gave both sworn and unsworn statements.) Failure to follow the rules (even without defense objection) gets…
Continue reading ›A press release alerts us to several proposals for the NDAA FY 2023 which could affect military justice. One addresses Supreme Court access (something NIMJ has long advocated for), and another is the question of unanimous verdicts post-Ramos v. Louisiana. A third addresses a suspect’s records (and their removal) when “Service member is subject to…
Continue reading ›Let’s begin with 10 U.S.C. § 1553a. (a)Establishment.— The Secretary of Defense shall establish a process by which to conduct a final review of a request for an upgrade in the characterization of a discharge or dismissal. (c)Definitions.—In this section: (1)The term “final review of a request for an upgrade in the characterization of a…
Continue reading ›Probably not successfully based on AV2 v. McDonough, No. 22-369, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72609 (D.D.C. April 20, 2022) and E.V. v. Robinson, 906 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2018) certiorari den. 140 S.Ct. 501, 205 L. Ed. 2d 316 (2019). In each of these cases, a military judge had granted discovery of mental health…
Continue reading ›
