WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HE DESIRED TO PRESENT INFORMATION CONCERNING HIS MENTAL HEALTH DURING HIS UNSWORN STATEMENT BUT HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL ALLEGEDLY REFUSED TO PERMIT HIM TO DO SO. SEE UNITED STATES v. DOBRAVA, 64 M.J. 503 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2006).CAAF remanded the case to ACCA "to obtain an affidavit from trial defense counsel that responds to Appellant's allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel" and to consider the issue. Id.
.jpg)
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
CAAF orders further proceedings on Grostefon issue
On Thursday, CAAF granted a petition and ordered further proceedings to explore a Grostefon IAC issue. United States v. Corum, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0474/AR (C.A.A.F. July 3, 2008) (summary disposition). CAAF granted review "on the following issue personally raised by Appellant":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Next term, the Supreme Court will deal with the "nothing to lose" issue in IAC. The 9th Circuit said that when there is "nothing to lose" by advancing at least one colorable defense, then counsel is duty bound to advance that defense. (In that case, the issue was an insanity defense) With little doubt, the SC will reverse, and strengthen (extend) Strickland. But just because the SC lowers the bar, does not mean that a conscientious defense counsel should not advance - or in this case merely allow - colorable claims.
The military is an inherently conservative institution and especially frowns on unique, novel, risky or longshot arguments. Too bad. One either represents the client or himself/herself. The argument should be advanced.
Post a Comment