Here are the issues to be argued before the Air Force Court on Wednesday in United States v. Gurry, No. ACM 37145:
I. Whether the Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when he was not advised by his defense attorneys that he could testify to rebut both new testimony and testimony emphasized by repetition through questioning by the members after they recalled five of six Government witnesses during deliberations.
II. Whether the Appellant was denied his rights to due process and to present a defense when he was not advised that he could testify to rebut both new testimony and testimony emphasized by repetition through questioning by the members after they recalled five of six Government witnesses during deliberations.
III. Whether the court-martial was without jurisdiction because the Commander, 72d Air Base Wing, had no authority to convene a general court-martial when he purportedly modified the convening order on 1 June 2007 and when the court was assembled on 12 June 2007, after such authority had been withdrawn effective 30 May 2007 by the Secretary of the Air Force.
VI. [not a typo] Whether Specification 4 failed to state an offense because it did not give proper notice and was void for vagueness.
2 comments:
Did he testify at all?
Is he saying that neither of his ADC told him that he could testify, even if he'd not testified already, or that he could testify a second time?
Is he saying that when all of this happened he never asked his ADC's whether he could testify?
Is there an affidavit from ADC?
CAAFlog, in Space Shuttle launches, the point at which an RTLS (Return-to-launch site)becomes no longer possible is known as "negative return," approximately four minutes after lift-off.
Has the CAAF season reached the point of "negative return," such that any grants now cannot be argued this term - but must wait until September?
Post a Comment