Do I have a felony is a frequent question to which the answer is – maybe. Of course the questioner is interested in the collateral effect of a special or general court-martial conviction. This becomes particularly important if you continue to commit crimes after release from the brig and the military. Are courts-martial courts under…
Continue reading ›Did he go AWOL? In June 2012, Michael Hastings (of GEN McCrystal “fame”) appears to have made that suggestion in a lengthy piece published by Rolling Stone. The mother and father sit at the kitchen table in their Idaho farmhouse, watching their son on YouTube plead for his life. The Taliban captured 26-year-old Bowe Bergdahl…
Continue reading ›In United States v. Blouin, ARMY 20101135 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 28 May 2014), the court has, in my view, taken a broader view of what qualifies as CP for the purpose of a guilty plea. However, the court is not taking an unknown or unvisited trail. Blouin was charged with possessing CP in violation…
Continue reading ›In United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and United States v. Quigley, 35 M.J. 345 (C.M.A. 1992), the court set out a procedure to follow when an Appellant wants to raise and issue, but appellate counsel do not think it has merit for briefing. During my time as deputy director at Navy…
Continue reading ›Real and to be expected-a natural consequence of how Congress and perhaps leadership is approaching the real and very important issue of preventing sexual assault? Military.com reports, In Survey, Lackland DIs Rip Leaders, Fear Recruits, 29 May 2014. A survey of basic-training instructors conducted during the worst sex scandal in Air Force history revealed a…
Continue reading ›The CAAF has decided United States v. Paul, 74 M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. May 29, 2014)(CAAFLog case page). The granted issue was: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF AN ELEMENT OF A CHARGE IN VIOLATION OF GARNER v. LOUISIANA, 368 U.S. 157 (1961) AND MILITARY RULE OF…
Continue reading ›What are the full limits of confrontation when it comes to scientific and expert testimony. Federal evidence blog notes: In denying certiorari review (this week0 in eleven cases raising Confrontation Clause and expert testimony issues, for the foreseeable future the Supreme Court will not resolve a significant issue that has been dividing the lower court;…
Continue reading ›By regulation (the U.S. Navy Regulations and the Navy’s Standard Organization and Regulations Manual (SORM), OPNAVINST 3120.32x,), the Navy required personnel to report having been arrested or prosecutions for criminal acts by civilian authorities. In United States v. Serianne, 68 M.J.580 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2009), aff’d, 69 M.J. 8 (C.A.A.F. 2010). the courts found the order unlawful,…
Continue reading ›You are an enlisted person. 1. You are reduced at Art. 15 from E-6 to E-5, you retire as an E-5. What rank is your retirement check based on and how is it calculated. Assume you came on active duty after 1 September 1980. 2. You are reduced at special court-martial from E-9 to E-6,…
Continue reading ›Prof. Colin Miller has an interesting post about prosecutorial discretion during the course of trial. Besides getting a conviction and an appropriate sentence, a secondary gain of the prosecutor is to have the case affirmed on appeal. Affirmance means a guilty person doesn’t walk or get a new trial. In the post Prof. Miller refers…
Continue reading ›
