Court-Martial Trial Practice

For various reasons the issue of homosexuality and DADT has been in the news for a while. The results of the various surveys to servicemembers and familys are still pending. Tomorrow, NMCCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Hayes: I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S COMMENTS ON THE RECORD AND DURING THE “BRIDGING THE…

The Guardian (UK) has this report: Twelve American soldiers face trial over an secret “kill team” that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies. Five of the soldiers are charged with murdering three Afghan men who were allegedly killed for sport in separate attacks this year. Seven…

San Diego Online has this short piece on the Coast Guard boating case and the ongoing Article 32, UCMJ, hearing which began today. Lawyers for the driver of a Coast Guard boat that killed an 8-year-old San Diego boy in December said the Coast Guard is prosecuting Petty Officer 3rd Class Paul Ramos in order…

Here are some interesting tidbits from the CAAF orientation session for new attorneys courtesy of NIMJ.blog. As for the rules changes, a big (and quite welcome, in my opinion) change is the new system in which nearly all CAAF pleadings are eligible for electronic filing. Be sure to redact privacy/sensitive information from such filings, as…

Here is an interesting technology case from the Third Circuit as reported by the Wall Street Journal blog. Technology has made it increasingly easy for the government to track an individual’s whereabouts. But on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit ratcheted back the government’s surveillance power, finding that judges have the right to…

North Country Times and Marine Corps Times report: [T]he trial for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich was delayed until Nov. 1 because a key prosecution witness, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent, had a bad accident and is recovering from surgery. Air Force Times reports: The Minnesota National Guard says one of the top leaders of…

And now for the political question doctrine. See fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.

And now for some history. Those with some basic familiarity with military law and who have been following the blogs of those with military law experience will recognize the cases cited.

From the conclusions of law:

I posted a tease here, and it didn’t take long for Dwight “My Liege” Sullivan to crack the code. In other words, Judge Lind used the word “embarrassment” in precisely the political question doctrine context (and using almost exactly the same words) as CAAF in New and the Supremes in Baker v. Carr. And all…