Pilot online is reporting that the XO, USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, has been to flag mast for an inappropriate relationship and has been relieved for cause. CBS Miami reports that the accused and appellant in United States v. Seldes has been granted a licence to practice medicine. Navy and Marine Corps Times are reporting that:…
Continue reading ›Professor Colin Miller discusses an interesting situation of lip reading and lip reading testimony as an issue under Crawford v. Washington.
Continue reading ›Joint Base Charleston is reporting: Airman 1st Class Dustin Miller from the 628th Security Forces Squadron was found guilty at a General Court-Martial of three charges; Article 80 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for attempted murder, Article 128 of the UCMJ for assault with a loaded firearm and Article 134 of the UCMJ…
Continue reading ›MilBlogs Powered By Ringsurf
Continue reading ›McElhaney on evidence. The Dirty Dozen: 12 Ways to Write a Really Bad Brief.
Continue reading ›Here is CAAF’s journal entry for United States v. Prince. No. 11-6003/AR. U.S. v. Michael A. PRINCE. CCA 20100939. On further consideration of the certified issue, 69 M.J. 499 (C.A.A.F. 2011), the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, we note that when acting on interlocutory appeals under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice…
Continue reading ›Stars & Stripes reports: Six crewmembers from the USS Patriot face administrative separation from the Navy after they were found guilty of hazing during Captain’s Mast, Navy officials said Friday. AP reports: The Air Force has discharged an airman under the law banning gays from serving openly in the military, the first firing since President…
Continue reading ›You will recollect the Velasquez case. The issues of VWAP and ultimately a number of Navy JA’s getting fired. Stars & Stripes reports: A former Navy doctor convicted of wrongful sexual contact with patients in Japan and Kuwait had his medical license revoked by the issuing state of California on May 26, according to public…
Continue reading ›United States v. Marsh. This was a case where the appellant was complaining about the TC’s argument on sentencing: an improper comment on his right to make an unsworn statement, and inflammatory comments. CAAF holds no improper comment on the unsworn, but there was improper inflammatory comment by the TC. Marsh argues that the trial…
Continue reading ›http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2579115n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2579115n
Continue reading ›
