Articles Posted in caaf

Summary and Analysis of the Opinion: Deference Owed to the Military Justice System and the Limits of Collateral Review by Federal District Courts The review is based on Csady v. Ashworth, but it is equally applicable when federal courts examine habeas corpus petitions from military prisoners under 28 U.S.C. 2241. I. Overview and Holding The…

When the government does not like the decision of a Court of Criminal Appeals–because it favors the Appellant, the Government has an automatic “appeal.” It’s called certifying the issue. This is an example of unfairness and discrimination in the appellate process which military defense lawyers are well aware of. So, how does that work. The…

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…

This week we received the decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals of a client accused of homosexual sexual assaults. He had been convicted and sentenced to 14 years of confinement. We raised many issues during his appeal. The Army Court found a serious error by the military judge in denying the defense presenting…

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…

A “coram nobis” appeal is a legal procedure used to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence after all other legal avenues for relief have been exhausted. It is a form of post-conviction relief available in some U.S. states and federal and military courts. Coram nobis appeals are generally limited to situations where there is newly…

United States v. Filmore. 1. If a victim testifies on sentencing–the rules of evidence apply the same as any other witness. Article 6b does not waive the rules of evidence when a victim testifies in sentencing. (Note, the victim gave both sworn and unsworn statements.) Failure to follow the rules (even without defense objection) gets…

So, let’s say that a witness answers a question during the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation, and then refuses to answer the same question at a subsequent trial? Does his answer at the Article 32, UCMJ investigation constitute a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(A)? Well, an Article 32, UCMJ, investigation is certainly an “other proceeding”…

For all of the criticisms of military justice and the UCMJ, you don’t have this at court-martial as tipped by Sentencing Law & Policy blog. Cargill, a federal public defender, was perturbed by a rarely discussed U.S. court rule that critics say conflicts with the presumption of judicial openness. In the Western District of Virginia,…

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…