Military service is a noble calling, but it can also lead to complex legal situations. When facing accusations or disciplinary actions, having experienced legal representation is crucial. Cave & Freeburg, LLP stands firmly behind service members across all branches (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard) with a proven track record of success…
Continue reading ›In the context of a court-martial, ineffective assistance of counsel refers to a claim by a military defendant that their defense counsel provided them with legal representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this deficient representation prejudiced the outcome of their case. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), military…
Continue reading ›Navy. 1. United States v. Curry. This is a BAH case. The Government proceeded on a theory of a fraudulent marriage as a basis to commit larceny by trick. The court held oral argument in this case and specified two additional issues to the parties.2 Additional pleadings were later filed. After carefully considering the record…
Continue reading ›United States v. Stanley. The appellant raised eight errors through counsel and an additional six in accordance with United States v. Grostefon. One assignment of error warrants discussion, but no relief. Specifically, appellant alleges that the military judge erred by failing to properly instruct the panel regarding appellant’s right during mutual combat to exercise self-defense…
Continue reading ›The Army Court of Criminal Appeals rules are here. As previously indicated there is no “deadline” for the filing of a writ petition in this situation, but once a petition is filed several deadlines and requirements kick in. Like DMLHS I have a request in for a copy of the petition. Note that in Cheney…
Continue reading ›Humor in military lawyering is good. Humor is good. Standby for a comment from DMLHS tonight. In thinking about why the case would be delayed to 3 November 2010 there were all kinds of ideas floating around, some ideas being of a conspiratorial nature. I had missed the piece noted by Reality Check (thanks!). Anyway,…
Continue reading ›Here is a link to United States v. Brasington., decided 13 September 2010. It is not unusual for an appellant to be issued a DD214, Honorable Discharge, sometime after a court-martial at which the appellant was adjudged a punitive discharge. In this case, we are asked, following remand, whether an honorable discharge, effective after this…
Continue reading ›In United States v. Morton, ACCA on remand from CAAF found no “dramatic change in the penalty landscape” and affirmed the sentence imposed at trial. On first review ACCA had set-aside two specifications regarding a falsification of a sick-slip under Article 123, UCMJ. But ACCA then affirmed two specifications thought to be closely related to…
Continue reading ›CAAF has decided United States v. Graner. Graner loses. We granted review in this Abu Ghraib case to determine whether the military judge abused his discretion in (1) refusing to compel the Government to produce certain memoranda requested by the defense; (2) excluding the testimony of, and an e-mail from, Major Ponce; and (3) limiting…
Continue reading ›In United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 156 (C.A.A.F. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 459 (2009) the court changed years of practice when it came to late filings of petitions for review with CAAF. In Rodriguez the court held that: In light of Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007), we conclude that…
Continue reading ›
