United States v. Cisti

an attorney “must be both qualified and designated” as a judge advocate in order to perform judge advocate functions, and when Capt CP had lost his standing to practice law in March 2021 he was no longer qualified to serve as a judge advocate. Therefore, the Defense reasoned, Capt CP was not eligible to administer the oath to Lt Col P in November 2021, nor to represent the Government at the preliminary hearing in January 2022, and the Charge and specifications should be dismissed. In response, the Government contended that because Capt CP’s designation as a judge advocate had not been withdrawn, he remained eligible both to administer the oath to Lt Col P and to represent the Government at the preliminary hearing.

This notice of appearance must: (a) State the jurisdiction(s) in which they are licensed and eligible to practice law, (b) Certify that they are in good standing with each jurisdiction, (c) Certify that they are not subject to any order disbarring, suspending, or otherwise restricting them in the practice of law, and 

United States v. Clark

Appellant requests this court set aside the findings where the military judge denied appellant's motion to compel a witness due to untimeliness. Where trial defense counsel filed the motion after the entry of pleas and after the deadline set by the pretrial order, we find the military judge did not abuse his discretion in determining defense failed to show good cause to file the motion out of time and affirm.

While the defense proffered a timeline, the timeline did not elucidate what steps defense took to investigate Mr. Us location prior to their private investigator contacting him on 9 June 2022, which was two days after the motions deadline, five months after the court's issue of the pretrial order, and ten months after preferral of the original charges, was not a surprise witness—someone defense had just discovered. Mr. El wrote his lengthy statement in March of the previous year and defense listed him as a witness on their initial request as y as 15 March 2022.3 The defense stated they were investigating Mr. s information from 1 April until 9 June but provided no more details about the actions they took to locate MrAduring those two months, or when they hired the private investigator, or what other hurdles their due diligence failed to overcome.
. . .
Failing to enforce the deadlines therein would render both the order and the military judge's role, in promoting efficiency and fairness, essentially toothless. But the rules do not promote a draconian adherence to deadlines. A party has recourse when they can show good cause. In appellant's case, the defense provided a reason for the late filing. We find, however, the military judge did not abuse his discretion indetermining, in light of the circumstances, that it was not a good one.

​Senior officials from each service also raised concerns about the newly established Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) and the likelihood that it will exacerbate issues of inexperience within certain litigation positions. Generally, judge advocates are expected to become eligible for assignment to the OSTC after 2 to 4 years of litigation experience. OSTC experience standards, coupled with the limited number of litigators who meet these requirements, will likely force the services to rely on inexperienced litigators to serve as defense counsel or other positions that lack similar requirements. Further, these officials stated that the focus on OSTC experience standards could lead to a potentially significant imbalance in the experience levels of defense and prosecution assigned to litigate the same case.