.jpg)
Today the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals heard a fascinating argument in which the government and the defense agreed that Marcum created an additional de facto element that must be satisfied in an Article 125 prosecution. The government, however, argued that that additional element didn't need to be satisfied in the Harvey case because his act of consensual, noncommercial, private same-gender oral sex charged under Article 133 rather than under Article 125. The argument should result in an interesting opinion.
Also today, with impecable timing, the January 2009 issue of the Army Lawyer went up on the web with a lead article about Article 125. Major Joel P. Cummings, Is Article 125, Sodomy a Dead Letter in Light of Lawrence v. Texas and the New Article 120?, Army Law., Jan. 2009, at 1. Here's a link.
Military justice practitioners will also be interested in the issue's article on military justice in a deployed setting, available here. Captain A. Jason Nef, Getting to Court: Trial Practice in Deployed Environment, Army Law., Jan. 2009, at 50.
Military justice blogs are to blogs as military music is to music. The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacity. They do not purport to be speaking for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity.
Military justice research links
- 2008 Military Judges' Benchbook web site
- AFMAN 51-203, Records of Trial (1 Oct 1999)
- AFPD 51-2, Administration of Military Justice (7 Sep 1993)
- Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice (21 Dec 07)
- Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct
- AR 27-10, Military Justice (16 Nov 2005)
- AR 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (1 May 1992)
- COMDTINST M5810.1D, Military Justice Manual (17 Aug 2000)
- Congressional Research Service, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Trends (March 30, 2006 ed.)
- Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (2002) with 2006 supplement
- JAGINST 5803.1C, Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the Judge Advocate General (9 Nov 04)
- JAGINST 5810.2A, Military Justice Regulations (17 Sep 93)
- JAGMAN, JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 07)
- Law Library Microform Consortium, Military Law Collection
- LOC military law collection
- Manual for Courts-Martial (2008 ed.)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.)
- Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN), JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 2007)
- Military Justice, Army Regulation 27-10 (16 Nov 2005)
- UCMJ (as of 28 Jan 2008)
Links
- ACCA's web site
- AFCCA's web site
- AIr Force Judge Advocate General's School's web site
- Air Force Law Review
- Army Lawyer
- Army Trial Judiciary's docket
- CAAF's web site
- CAAFlog.com
- CGCCA's web site
- Coast Guard trial and appellate dockets
- Court-Martial Trial Practice blog
- JAA American Inn of Court's web site
- JAA's web site
- JAG LAW Blog
- JAG Magazine [Navy]
- Journal of Military and Veteran Law
- Military Law Review
- Naval Law Review
- NIMJ's web site
- NJS's web site
- NMCCA's web site
- SCOTUSblog (aka, the greatest blog on the planet)
- Supreme Court's web site
- The Reporter [Air Force]
- This Court-Martial Sentences You To . . . [blog]
- TJAGLCS's web site
Blog archive
-
▼
2009
(520)
-
▼
February
(75)
- CAAF grant and hearing notice
- Rumors of an Air Force JAG School web outage seem ...
- Audio of NMCCA's Garner argument
- Anticipated web outage reminder
- Master Sergeant Newell acquitted
- The final two pieces of the Judicial Conference pu...
- Civilian habeas petitioner dismisses his action
- Al-Marri To Be Indicted In Federal District Court
- Audio of today's CAAF oral arguments
- CAAFlog Makes Specter's SG Nominee Questions
- Court Martial News - Leahy Sentence and Quigley Di...
- More info on CAAF Judicial Conference program
- CAAF hearing calendar updated
- ACCA denies relief in Akbar
- New CAAF decision: United States v. Macomber
- NMCCA denies government motion for expedited rulin...
- Denied x 3
- This week in military justice -- 22 February 2009 ...
- Yesterday's ACCA Fisher opinion [EXPLICIT LANGUAGE...
- NYT article on Martinez PTA offer
- New published ACCA decision
- Meaningful relief cont'
- Sgt Nelson's court-martial delayed again
- Conliffe update
- Adolph indictment
- Lots of updates
- Sgt Leahy Found Guilty of Pre-Med Murder
- Burch update
- Did Marcum establish an additional element in an A...
- Another day, another DOJ motion in a civilian cont...
- Prepare for web site outages
- January 2009 Army Lawyer out -- with Article 125 a...
- Judge denies motion to dismiss in Blackwater contr...
- CAAF fills in another piece of the Judicial Confer...
- Update on civilian contractor's habeas case
- 3, 3 High Profile Courts Martial This Week, Ah, Ah...
- An important unpublished NMCCA opinion
- More on tomorrow's Harvey argument
- Court Martial News - Updated
- This week in military justice -- 15 February 2009 ...
- An appellate case's unusual trajectory
- Follow up on today's published AFCCA Rose opinion
- Published AFCCA opinion grants relief due to couns...
- Military/Uniformed Lawyer Glasnost
- Another U.S. deserter resists deportation from Canada
- NMCCA oral argument online
- Audio of today's CAAF oral arguments online
- CAAF posts audio of last week's Project Outreach a...
- Slate's discussion of United States v. Denedo
- MEJA motions
- TWIMJ addition
- Military justice glasnost trend continues
- Denedo Respondent's Merits Brief Filed
- This week in military justice -- 8 February 2009 e...
- Appellate relief data
- USMC Capital Case Ex Writ
- Army Trial Judiciary docket website
- Exciting news! Coast Guard posts trial and appell...
- CGCCA's online opinions updated
- Judge issues show cause order in civilian contract...
- Hear ye, Hear ye -- and BZ to AFCCA
- A thought about CAAF's docket
- Another Civilian Habeas Corpus Petition
- Another CGCCA opinion
- AP reports that then-Deputy Defense Secretary Engl...
- Text of Senate Bill 357, the Equal Justice for Uni...
- More info on parking the ACCA in Harvard Yard
- CAAF posts Judicial Conference schedule & a CAAFlo...
- Upcoming ACCA argument
- New CGCCA opinion
- Judge Cox solicits attributed input for Cox Commis...
- Park the ACCA in Harvard Yard
- Happy Groundhog Day
- No Man's Version of Mythbusters: Dolly Sods Trees...
- This week in military justice -- Super Bowl XLIII ...
-
▼
February
(75)
Labels
- Admin (14)
- Architecture (2)
- Art. 2a10 (27)
- Article 125 (1)
- CAAF docket (41)
- CAAF grants (28)
- CAAF judges (2)
- CAAF oral argument audio (11)
- Capital courts-martial (46)
- CCAs (32)
- CLE/Events (13)
- collateral review (4)
- Court-martial news (69)
- habeas (5)
- MEJA (31)
- Military commissions (5)
- Military justice legislation (19)
- Military justice reform (18)
- MilJus Scholarship (22)
- New Article 120 (8)
- New CAAF opinions (40)
- New CCA opinions (47)
- Rants (9)
- SCOTUS MilJus Cases (64)
- TWIMJ (39)
- US SOFAs (16)
Contributors
Our contact information
You can reach us by email at:
caaflog@caaflog.com
caaflog@caaflog.com
Posts
18 comments:
Oh of course, the constitutional liberty interest changes because we're under a different UCMJ Article.
Where do government lawyers go to school?
I see Cloudesley taking an interest in the introductory statement of this article.
Very interesting. Perhaps I am most interested in FN 11 in which the author describes the two adults in Lawrence as engaging is sexual practices "common to a homosexual lifestyle" Rumor has it that opposite sex couples have been known to engage in the same behavior, at least I have heard that to be the case.
Anon 07:47, Exactly how does the Marcum/Lawrence analysis change because this is charged under 133?
Always good two see my friend Miracle Max doing his part to advance the law with a sense of humor.
Bonus points to the author for sneaking the word "frotteur" into the article, a word I had never heard of until just now.
However, I respectfully disagree with the author's analysis of the interplay between the new Art. 120 and Art. 125.
Had to look it up. Frotteurism: the paraphiliac practice of achieving sexual stimulation or orgasm by touching and rubbing against a person without the person's consent and usually in a public place -- called also frottage. And had to look up paraphiliac as well - a preference for or addiction to unusual sexual practices.
I thought only Congress or the President could add or subtract elements. So CAAF added one in Marcum? Get back in your box, Denedo.
Note that in his biographical footnote, Maj Cummings went to "The Ohio State University" and to "Vermont University" without the "The." Let's be consistent. If you are into using "The" before the university, then use "The Vermont University," as well. Check the school's website.
Actually, it's "The University of Vermont."
Anon 747: I thought only Congress could add elements. Since when does the prosecution get the power to say what the elements of a crime are? That would be a bit of a kangaroo court if the MilJus system allowed the Pres. to prosecute servicemebers and define the crimes they would be prosecuted under.
Right, no man. But Congress seems to delegate a lot of its power. See Art. 36, UCMJ. Not saying it's constitutional, but the SCt seems to take a laissez faire approach to most of this now. With most of the UCMJ offenses, Congress sets out the basics and the President fills in the framework.
Don't commanders get to decide on the content of orders and then prosecute those who violate what the commander decided should be the subject of an order? I don't see any important difference between that and allowing the Executive to establish the elements of a crime whetre it also is the prosecutorial authority.
Ummm, No Man, who do you think comes up with the Art. 134 enumerated offenses? It ain't Congress...
JO'C and Anon:
Those aren't elements. The order first of all must be lawful, so no, not everything the commander says is an element of the offense. Art. 92 doesn;t care what the elements of the order were, just that it was obeyed. Furthermore, the CO wasn't acting in a prosecutorial role when he gave the order so there is a difference between an order and defining elements of a crime. Secondly, the elements of Art. 134 are set out in the US Code and no where else. Those "enumerated" offenses aren't elements, they are factual findings that set the punishment within the maximum potential punishment (:as a court martial may direct"), which is also determined by COngress. Grover, where are you man . . . what is this concept I am talking about here called, I can't quite remember. There is a case . . .
US v. Fishbane?
Anyone know whether a proposal's pending to incorporate the Marcum factors into the next amendment of the MCM?
I have not hear if there is official discussion of adding the Marcum factors element to the next MCM. I have heard a suggestion, other than that in the Army Lawyer article, to transfer sodomy as a 134 charge to be set out in the manner of the 134 adultery.
No Man:
If you re-read my post, I never said that the issuance of an order constituted "elements" of a crime. What I said was that the CO issuing the order was deciding what type of conduct would be criminalized (subject, as all laws are, to constitutional standards) and was also proseucitng violations of those criminal norms.
I'm not arguing one way or the other whether there is some concept in crinminal law that says "elements" of a crime must be established by a legislature (though I have my doubts about whether such a rule should apply in the military context if there is proper delegation). I was quarreling with your point that allowing the Executive to establish elements makes a criminal justice system a kangaroo court. If the "elements" and the "law" are clearly established (such that there is no ex post facto law) and the prosecution is subject to constitutional restraints, it isn't inherently corrupting or "kangarooish" if the elements were established by the Executive.
JOC:
I wasn't arguing and kangaroos had inhabited the beltway. Rather, I believe that a fundamental precept of both civil and military law is that Congress must establish the offenses and the elements of an offense and not the President. Other separation of powers arguments have not required existing mischief to establish a violation of that constitutional principle. And I am not even suggesting the result would be Better is left to the legislature, see eg the amended Art. 120. I don't think Congress may properly delegate that function as a separation of those powers was contemplated by the Framers, even as far as military punishments. I think the expansion of the MJus system post Solorio et al only reinforces that this parallel court system should have that same protection.
Post a Comment