Latest report from the Martinez court-martial

Here's a link to the Fayetteville Observer's dispatch from an election-day shortened session in the Martinez capital court-martial being tried at Fort Bragg.

One effect of the election

It has come to my attention that we have a new President Elect. Though I don't think it ever became a campaign issue, one power the new President will have is the appointment of a CAAF judge. Unlike Article III judges, of course, CAAF judges sit for 15-year terms (which may be renewed). Chief Judge Effron's term expires in 2011, a little more than a year before the next presidential election. No other CAAF judge's term will expire during the 2009-2013 presidential administration.

Latest from the Martinez capital court-martial

Here's a link to the latest on the Martinez capital court-martial from the Fayetteville Observer. (This post was made using my new wireless hardware. Not bad for an unfrozen caveman lawyer.)

Cert denied in two military cases

The Supremes today announced that they denied cert in Ryan v. United States, No. 08-422, and Swanson v. United States, No. 08-6476.

More court-martial follies

Again courtesy of my colleague Capt Mike Burnat, this excerpt shows why military judges should read the record before authenticating it:

MJ: "I have been probably qualified and sworn and detailed to this court-martial by . . . ."

And in the least competent witness department, a military judge made this observation: "in its 20 years in the Air Force, the court has never seen a witness incorrectly raise the wrong hand when taking an oath . . . ."

Fayetteville Observer's latest on the Martinez capital court-martial

The Fayetteviile Observer's reports on the Martinez capital court-martial at Fort Bragg have become required reading for me. Here's a link to the latest dispatch.

In the event of a conviction and death sentence, it certainly seems that there will be potential appellate issues in the case.

Mistrial motion denied in Martinez case

Here's a link to an interesting Fayetteville Observer report about a motion for a mistrial in the capital Martinez case being tried at Fort Bragg. The mistrial motion arose when a CID agent's testimony to the members twice mentioned evidence that had been ruled inadmissible.

Court-martial follies

The life of a military appellate counsel -- sitting in a room reading records of trial day after day -- may not sound riveting. But fortunately, records of trial often provide entertainment. My colleague Capt Mike Burnatt found this amusing exchange in an Air Force ROT:

(After Trial counsel's findings witness testified):

MJ: Trial counsel, you may proceed.

TC: Argument, sir.

MJ: Well, we're still at evidence now. Does the government rest? Do you have any additional evidence?

TC: We'll go with sentencing evidence.

MJ: We're in findings now. So, you're trying to convince the court that . . .

TC: No, sir, nothing, no further evidence.

MJ: So the government rests?

TC: Yes, sir.

CAAF grants review of victim impact evidence issue

CAAF yesterday granted review of this issue: "WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ALLOWING THE FATHER OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM TO TESTIFY AS EVIDENCE IN AGGRAVATION, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, AS TO THE IMPACT ON THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF THE INVESTIGATION AND COURT-MARTIAL." United States v. Stephens, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0589/AF (C.A.A.F. Oct. 29, 2008). AFCCA's decision in the case is published at 66 M.J. 520. The portion of the opinion relevant to the granted issue is at 527-28.

Commentary on Watada

Here's a link to a Jurist commentary on Watada by Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr., the co-chair of NACDL's Military Law Committee.