The Washington Post has a report today: The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000. Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s…
Continue reading ›Under the “old” Article 32, the right to call and examine witnesses and to obtain production (discovery) of evidence was pretty robust. All Services except the Air Force and Coast Guard routinely recorded the audio of the hearing. That audio could then be transcribed into a verbatim transcript. The benefit to the government was that…
Continue reading ›On today’s CAAF daily journal we find: No. 15-0172/MC. U.S. v. Francis L. Captain. CCA 201300137. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues specified by the Court:…
Continue reading ›[D]istrict courts generally enjoy a fair amount of discretion in choosing the procedures they find most helpful for resolving pretrial motions, including whether to take the matter on the briefs, hear oral argument, or hold an evidentiary hearing. And often enough courts will choose to err on the side of granting more process than might…
Continue reading ›Marquette University Law School will host oral arguments for the court martial appeal of a U.S. Air Force sergeant accused of sexually assaulting two girls and endangering his baby son. So says the Wisconsin Bar Journal. Here is an link to a preview by a colleague. I will be appearing along with Captain John Legg,…
Continue reading ›The question is often asked of me–can we win on appeal, will the appellate courts give a fair hearing and review. In United States v. Soto, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) reviewed the factual sufficiency of appellant’s conviction for rape and any lesser included offenses. A military judge accepted the appellant’s pleas…
Continue reading ›A sophisticated employer knows how to interpret the numbers and language in the DD214. The codes are easily findable on the internet. This creates an issue with coding for early separation due to draw-down measures. So the following came over the transom. DD 214 SEPARATION PROGRAM DESIGNATOR NARRATIVE The DD Form 214, which is issued…
Continue reading ›On 28 January 2015, DoD issued an instruction (DODI 1304.33) protecting against inappropriate relationships during recruiting and entry level training. Paragraph 1.a.(1)(k) of Enclosure (3) of this instruction expressly prohibits recruiters and trainers providing entry level training from soliciting donations from a recruit or trainee. Apparently there have been questions concerning the impact of this…
Continue reading ›I am for (and against) the SVC program. I am mostly for it because it is necessary. Over the years and prior to the Air Force start there were regulations in place that required the trial counsel to inform the “victim” of what was happening in the case and get their input. The trial counsel…
Continue reading ›A couple of items have come across the transom today which are worth the read to military practitioners. James E. Baker, Is Military Justice Sentencing on the March? Should it be? And if so, Where should it Head? Court-Martial Sentencing Process, Practice, and Issues, Fed. Sentencing Rep. Dec. 2014, at 72-87. This items comes from…
Continue reading ›
