WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT ON OBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL ORDERS AS IT PERTAINED TO MALTREATMENT BY HAVING A MILITARY WORKING DOG (MWD) BARK AT A DETAINEE WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE MILITARY JUDGE THAT SUCH AN ORDER WAS ILLEGAL.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE DID NOT INSTRUCT THE PANEL ON OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS (LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL) AS IT PERTAINED TO MALTREATMENT BY HAVING A MWD BARK AT JUVENILE DETAINEES.
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE FOR ALL MALTREATMENT SPECIFICATIONS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, BECAUSE THE DETAINEES WERE NOT "SUBJECT TO [APPELLANT'S] ORDERS" AND DID NOT HAVE A "DUTY TO OBEY."
.jpg)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
CAAF grant
Yesterday, CAAF granted review in United States v. Smith, No. 09-0169/AR, on these issues:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Why are so many comments being deleted. Hope this comment is not deleted before it is answered. Help CAAFLog.
Two of the comments in this thread were mine. The other six got deleted by an administrator (at least that's what it said). Since my two comments were the only ones left, and they were basically cracking wise with the other six comments, I deleted them because they made no sense once the other comments were gone.
Post a Comment