Sunday, April 12, 2009

This week in military justice -- 11 April 2009 edition

This week at the Supremes: There are no scheduled military justice developments at the Supremes this week. It's probably still too early to post a watch for a decision in Denedo.

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral arguments in four cases this week. Tuesday's first argument will be in United States v. Matthews, No. 08-0613/AR, where the granted issue is "WHETHER THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MIL. R. EVID. 509 DOES NOT BAR THE GOVERNMENT FROM CALLING THE MILITARY JUDGE FROM A JUDGE-ALONE TRIAL TO TESTIFY AT A DuBAY HEARING AS TO HIS DELIBERATIVE PROCESS." Tuesday's second oral argument is in United States v. Marshall, No. 08-0779/AR, where the granted issue is "WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE'S FINDING BY EXCEPTIONS AND SUBSTITUTIONS CREATED A MATERIAL FATAL VARIANCE IN CHARGE III AND ITS SPECIFICATION [ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY]." Wednesday's first argument is United States v. Sanders, No. 09-0013/AF, where the granted issue is "WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ADMITTING IRRELEVANT AND HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF R.C.M. 1001 AND MIL. R. EVID. 403." And CAAF's final argument of the week is United States v. Wiechmann, No. 09-0082/MC, where the granted issue is "WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THE CONVENING AUTHORITY AND STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE FAILED TO RECOGNIZE ONE OF HIS TWO DETAILED DEFENSE COUNSEL."

This week at the CCAs: It doesn't appear that any of the CCAs have oral arguments scheduled this week.

This week in CLE: On Tuesday at 1200, NIMJ will hold a program on openness of courts-martial at the American University's Washington School of Law.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

#4 is a pretty big waste of time (and money). Act like adults and recognize the freaking defense lawyer who shows up to defend a client.

Cloudesley Shovell said...

So, Anon at 1:21pm, let us consider a hypothetical:

Your command is in Japan. A reserve JAG from Florida is in Japan on vacation, hears a buddy of his is charged at a court-martial, gets the local defense counsel to pull some strings with higher ups and exploit some ambiguous regs, and "detail" the reserve JAG to his buddy's case.

You are the SJA for the command--are you now obligated to inform your commander to roll over and pay to fly this reserve JAG out to Japan for every session of court, and maybe pay his pay and allowances as well? Or would you maybe, just maybe, ask a couple questions about the propriety of the "detailing" process.

Just asking.

Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte said...

I agree with my learned Admiral, it really helps to know the facts of the case before you postulate upon it. The QP's are no indication of the fact. So #4 is actually pretty important. "Showing up" is not being detailed.

Anonymous said...

Granted issue uses the word "detailed". Was one of the two not properly detailed?

Cloudesley Shovell said...

Anon at 3:48pm--The issue(s) before the Court are normally framed by the defense in its petition to the Court. The counsel who framed this particular issue was just being a good, zealous advocate. However, one would need to read the parties' briefs to really understand the issue and facts underlying it.

Cloudesley Shovell said...

And speaking of This Week in Military Justice, I am very pleased to hear that several Somali pirates got exactly the military justice they deserved, good and hard.

As for the 4th pirate, I do believe modern naval vessels still have yardarms, and a supply of rope. How about some good old fashioned shore bombardment as well?

Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte said...

Ahhh,,,we yearn for the good old days. I do believe Thomas Jefferson would be proud.

Anonymous said...

Hmm....Exactly what I was thinking. Anyone else feel sick of these questions:

"Do you think this action (shooting pirates) will result in further escalation when they typically don't shoot civilians?"

"Is the 4th Pirate going to be tried on U.S. soil or Kenya?"

Yes, liberalism is a mental disorder.

How about "trying" him by dropping him off shark infested waters.

And why should we be concerned with how other pirates may react? The same arguement is used to favor the terrorist on land, "but if we go after the terrorist, won't it increase violence?"

Well no duh. This happens in every conflict, that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands.

The solution is bombardment. It has worked before. This is not a new problem that needs new solutions. This problem has proceeded us before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Pirates

Anonymous said...

It's going to be a rough year for the Pirates if they keep this up.

They don't even have a solid farm system to build on.

Oh yeah, and the Somali pirates are going to be hurting also.