National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
    • Staff
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
    • Staff
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us

CAAFlog

News for today

5/30/2023

0 Comments

 
Air Force Times is reporting that Major General Cooley is now Colonel Cooley (Ret).
0 Comments

Using AI to create a legal document--be careful out there

5/27/2023

0 Comments

 
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/32/1/mata-v-avianca-inc/ is the link to the affidavits in which the counsel admits to using ChatGPT for case research.

Some of us have tinkered with ChatGPT for briefs---um, not a good idea.
0 Comments

Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals

5/27/2023

0 Comments

 

United States v. Grijalva

Who said that the "service connection" requirement is dead after Solorio. If dead, Congress may have and the CGCCA has resurrected it for a specific offense--something that Congress could do. Grijalva was convicted of knowingly and wrongfully, without specific consent, sharing nude pictures in fake Tinder account. 

Grijalva hacked into a friend of a friend's Snapchat account, downloaded nude and other pictures of the friend. He then created a fake Tinder account with the friends name and used her pictures. He promised a meeting with "her" and in the process made $200.00 based on the solicitation.

He was charged with an unenumerated offense under Article 134(2). On appeal, he alleged that the charge and specification was preempted by Article 117a. CGCCA disagreed.
Appellant was convicted of an unenumerated specification under Article 134, UCMJ, alleging: (1) that he knowingly, wrongfully, and without explicit consent broadcast an intimate visual image of Ms. B.C., who is identifiable from the visual image or from information displayed in connection with the visual image when he knew or reasonably should have known that the visual image was made under circumstances in which Ms. B.C. retained a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any broadcast and when he knew or reasonably should have known that the broadcast of the visual image was likely to cause harm, harassment, or emotional distress for Ms. B.C. or to harm substantially Ms. B.C. with respect to her safety, business, calling, career, reputation, or personal relationships; and (2) that, under the circumstances, Appellant’s conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. This embraced all but two of the elements of wrongful broadcast of an intimate visual image under Article 117a, UCMJ: (1) that the intimate visual image involves a person who is at least 18 years of age at the time the intimate visual image was created; and (2) that the accused’s conduct, under the circumstances, had a reasonably direct and palpable connection to a military mission or military environment. 
The court rehearses the statutory language and legislative history of Article 117a. In doing so, the court concludes that the Article is limited to situations where the victim is another servicemember or veteran.

The issue arises over the interpretation of "(4) whose conduct, under the circumstances, had a reasonably direct and palpable connection to a military mission or military environment," in the statute.
​The statutory language makes clear that Article 117a is tailored to address nonconsensual sharing of intimate images of adults that, “under the circumstances, had a reasonably direct and palpable connection to a military mission or military environment.” Article 117a(a)(4). Legislative history shows that the specific statutory purpose for doing so was to target the sharing/broadcasting of intimate images of servicemembers and veterans without their permission. 
In Grijalva, the victim was a civilian.

With that in mind, the court finds no difficulty in deciding against Grijalva on the preemption argument.

But I think the question to be asked of CAAF is more nuanced. Is it arguable that "whose conduct, under the circumstances, had a reasonably direct and palpable connection to a military mission or military environment," is a blending of the second element of an Article 134(1) or (2) offense--conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and/or service discrediting? The full text of Article 117a states
a) Prohibition.-Any person subject to this chapter-
​
   (1) who knowingly and wrongfully broadcasts or distributes an intimate visual image of another person or a visual image of sexually explicit conduct involving a person who

     (A) is at least 18 years of age at the time the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct was created;
     (B) is identifiable from the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct itself, or from information displayed in connection with the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct; and
     (C) does not explicitly consent to the broadcast or distribution of the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct;
   (2) who knows or reasonably should have known that the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct was made under circumstances in which the person depicted in the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct retained a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any broadcast or distribution of the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct;
   (3) who knows or reasonably should have known that the broadcast or distribution of the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct is likely-
     (A) to cause harm, harassment, intimidation, emotional distress, or financial loss for the person depicted in the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct; or
     (B) to harm substantially the depicted person with respect to that person's health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships; and

   (4) whose conduct, under the circumstances, had a reasonably direct and palpable connection to a military mission or military environment.

The opinion notes that a 2017 DoJ recommended (ltr at 10) the additional element to address First Amendment concerns. DoJ cites to United States v. Wilcox, 66 M.J. 442, 449 (C.A.A.F. 2008). And as part of the discussion suggests that an enumerated offense under Article 134 would be appropriate. That's not in the 2019 manual.
0 Comments

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

5/24/2023

1 Comment

 

United States v. Figuereo

Figuereo presents a case where the court found a valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest created by the lead military defense counsel. The court did, however, limit the IAC to the sentencing case. The court also set-aside an enlisted panel's findings of another offense. In reassessment the court set-aside 10 months of confinement (which the appellant had already served by then) and left in place three months of confinement.

Initially, the military judge accepted the appellant's guilty pleas to several charges and specifications. The members convicted appellant of one specification of abusive sexual contact. The guilty plea was for wrongfully consuming alcohol while underage; two specifications of wrongful use of marijuana; two specifications of wrongfully communicating a threat; three specifications of assault consummated by a battery; and one specification of drunk and disorderly conduct. The military judge sentenced the appellant to 

​a total of 13 months’ confinement, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge. The confinement portion of the sentence was segmented. Ten months of the confinement sentence was attributed to the specification of abusive sexual contact, Article 120, UCMJ, and was to run consecutively with the rest of the confinement term (three months) attributed to the other charges and their specifications. For the charges and their specifications to which the Appellant pleaded guilty, the military judge imposed between two and three months’ confinement all to run concurrently with each other.
The facts surrounding the IAC are not pretty, and you should read them for yourself. When done, consider (1) what can and cannot be said to a defense witness about contacting an alleged victim of a sexual assault after that victim has testified, and (2) should you get that wrong how should you go about explaining your actions when they are brought up when trial counsel brings them up as creating a conflict of interest. And in the process avoid getting your name in the court's opinion.

United States v. London

In London, the members convicted the appellant of involuntary manslaughter. The NMCCA finds the conviction factually insufficient.
Appellant argues that the Government failed to prove that he punched Mr. Hotel, that the testimony and forensic evidence failed to prove that Mr. Hotel was punched, and that the forensic evidence showed that Mr. Hotel’s injury was consistent with falling backwards from pulling on Appellant’s sweatshirt rather than being punched.

The Government here argues that there are three ways in which the circumstantial evidence in this case proves Appellant’s guilt. First, the medical expert testimony eliminated other potential causes for Mr. Hotel’s injuries. Second, the combination of medical evidence and witness testimony show that Appellant punched Mr. Hotel, while Appellant’s false explanation to a physician about his broken hand and his expression of remorse over the fight demonstrate consciousness of guilt. And third, the evidence shows that Appellant was the only one of his party close enough to Mr. Hotel to cause his injuries.
The case for and against London heavily depended on forensic evidence--pathology and toxicology. There were eyewitnesses, but none could testify to crucial facts against the appellant--none saw appellant punch the victim. Essentially the government was arguing that Appellant did punch the victim which caused the victim to have an "accelerated fall," which caused a skull fracture and, ultimately death. Essentially the defense argued that the victim was pulling on Appellant's sweatshirt so strongly that it caused indicia of strangulation and was so hard it ripped the sweatshirt, and then when the sweatshirt ripped the intoxicated victim fell and struck his head.

Read More
1 Comment

NMCCA

5/24/2023

0 Comments

 

The link to the Navy military justice and NMCCA opinions has been updated. The listing of publicly available cases seems to be a work in progress (hopefully the search function will be fixed). 

0 Comments

Kevin J. Barry Award -- Prof. Saira Mohamed

5/23/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
Kevin J. Barry
Picture
Saira Mohamed
The National Institute of Military Justice is pleased to announce the winner of the 2022 Kevin J. Barry Award.

This award is intended to recognize substantial scholarship from the previous year, and will be evaluated for “excellence in military legal studies,” with the winner selected by a committee of law professors and practitioners.

The winner is:


Professor Saira Mohamed (Berkeley), for her article entitled Abuse by Authority: The Hidden Harm of Illegal Orders. 107 Iowa L. Rev. 2183 (2022).

Prof. Mohamed's piece "argues that international and domestic law should acknowledge [a] superior's order not only as a link to the crimes of the subordinate, but also as an abuse of the superior's relationship of authority over the subordinate."

Given that one of the most distinctive features of military criminal law is its recognition of a limited superior orders defense, this new theoretical framing of unlawful orders makes an important contribution to our field. 
0 Comments

Coming Soon

5/22/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

May 22nd, 2023

5/22/2023

1 Comment

 

New Article on Fort Hood Report

011_supporting_victims_of_sexual_misconduct.pdf
File Size: 596 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

1 Comment

May 15th, 2023

5/15/2023

0 Comments

 
The new Article 140a requires periodic reports to Congress about the Services' case management systems. NIMJ recently obtained these reports via FOIA. More analysis to follow.
section_547_plans__ogc_.pdf
File Size: 2150 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

5/6/2023

0 Comments

 

​United States v. Kim

Kim is a guilty plea case with an issue as to the providence of one specification. The CAAF affirms the findings of three specifications of sexual abuse of a child and one assault and battery.
 
The military judge had sentenced the Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, 130 months of confinement, and reduction to grade E-1. The CA abided by the PTA to reduce the confinement to six years.
 
The CAAF sets aside an Article 134(2) specification that alleged:
that Appellant “did . . . commit indecent conduct, to wit: conducting an internet search for ‘rape sleep’ and ‘drugged sleep,’ and that said conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”
​CAAF tells us that:

Read More
0 Comments
<<Previous
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Co-editors:
    Phil Cave
    Brenner Fissell
    Links
    ​

    UCMJ
    CAAF
    -Daily Journal
    -Current Term Opinions
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    Joint R. App. Pro.
    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    CAAFlog 1.0
    CAAFlog 2.0

    Archives

    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly