Haven’t seen this come up for a while. An individual can “abandon his rank and position of authority in dealing with a subordinate by his own misconduct.” United States v. Richardson, 7 M.J. 320 (C.M.A. 1979) (citing United States v. Noriega, 7 C.M.A 196 (C.M.A. 1956)). The Government argues that the defense of abandonment of…
Continue reading ›Court-Martial Trial Practice
The Canary in the Military Justice Mineshaft: A Review of Recent Sexual Assault Courts-Martial Tainted by Unlawful Command Influence, by Mark Visger. 41 MITCHELL HAMLINE L. J. PUB. POLICY & PRACTICE 59
Continue reading ›The Pentagon has launched a new program that aims to find serial sex offenders in the military by compiling information into a database submitted by sexual-assault survivors. The program, called Catch a Serial Offender, or Catch, allows survivors of sexual assault who are submitting a restricted report to provide information confidentially about the sexual assault…
Continue reading ›It looks like CAAF is ready to give us their interpretation and applications of MIL. R. EVID. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) AND 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). Yesterday, CAAF granted in the following cases. No. 20-0006/NA. U.S. v. Matthew D. Norwood. CCA 201800038. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court…
Continue reading ›You have heard me speak of secondary gain; a term used by psychologists which we lawyers call motive to lie. There are several motives to lie, United States v. Wetuski, AFCCA, presents two–to get out of trouble and to get an expedited transfer. Given the timing of A1C ME’s removal from military justice and the…
Continue reading ›From time to time I bring attention to a civilian case that may be of interest to practitioners. Mostly these are post-CAAF cases arising from the USDB. So today I have Coleman v. Commandant., decided 22 November 2019, in the USDC Kansas. This matter is a pro se petition for habeas corpus filed under 28…
Continue reading ›No. 19-0467/AR. U.S. v. Charles E. Robinson III. CCA 20170536. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the sentence affirmed by the lower court appears not to conform to the terms of the pretrial agreement. In accordance with…
Continue reading ›Eve Brensike Primus, Disaggregating Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Doctrine: Four Forms of Constitutional Ineffectiveness. 72 STANDFORD L. REV. x (2020). For years, experts have blamed Strickland v. Washington’s lax standard for assessing trial attorney effectiveness for many of the criminal justice system’s problems. But the conventional understanding of Strickland as a problem for ineffectiveness claims…
Continue reading ›Anyone raising a UCI motion must be familiar with the Third Army cases and those that follow. United States v. Thomas, 22 MJ 388 (C.M.A. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1085 (1987); see also United States v. Levite, 25 MJ 334 (C.M.A. 1987). Checkout United States v. Newbold, 45 M.J. 109 (C.A.A.F. 1996). Apparently NCIS…
Continue reading ›Military music will now be played before the U.S. Supreme Court. Grants in Briggs and Collins.
Continue reading ›




