"William L. Calley Jr., Convicted in My Lai Massacre, Is Dead at 80
Hundreds of Vietnamese civilians died at the hands of American soldiers, but Lieutenant Calley was the only one found guilty."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/us/william-calley-dead.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

Does anyone know if the full text of his speech at the Kiwanas in 2009 is available?

If you follow Prof. Friedman's The Confrontation Blog, you will find his discussion of

There is a useful part of his post which can be used in other circumstances.

I have seen and frequently litigate calling the MCIO agent, often a first witness to explain the context of the case. 

"Context testimony generally begins with a detailed recitation from the law enforcement agent about getting a call, what they had for breakfast, and what they did, who they spoke to, what was told to them, and what they did as a result of that.  In the process the agent testifies to hearsay, which brings up Confrontation issues, gives opinions, and wastes court time, which is a part of the Mil. R. Evid. 403 concerns."

"The issue has been addressed in the federal circuit courts under the Federal Rules of Evidence.  In Combest, NMCCA said:

We can locate no case law from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces or our own court controlling the question of whether AH's testimony was properly admitted under an effect-on-the listener theory. This question has, however, been addressed by other federal appellate courts and their treatment of the issue is instructive. See United States v. Cass, 127 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Reyes, 18 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Martin, 897 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir. 1990). The prosecutors in each of the aforementioned cases elicited testimony, over hearsay objections, that contained out of-court statements that heightened the culpability of the respective defendants. In each case, the Government argued that the statements were not being offered for their truth, but to elucidate the investigatory background, provide context for the jurors, and show why law enforcement took the steps it did."

See, United States v. Combest, NMCCA 201100158 (N. M. Ct. Crim. App., 16 August 2011)(unpub.). In addition to the Michigan case, see also, United States v. Hinson, 585 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2009) cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1910, 176 L. Ed. 2d 367 (2010)3; United States v. Silva, 380 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v.. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Davis, 449 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Benitez-Avila, 570 F.3d 364 (1st Cir. 2009) cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 429, 175 L. Ed. 2d 294 (2009).

The state argues that Alvarado's current condition was "background information," necessary to give the jury the setting of the case. The state asserts that, without this information, the jury would have had to make its decision in a void. This argument is feckless. It is the old "background" canard that has somehow grown up in this county over the years, and seems to fool many people. But there is no separate Hamilton County common law, and this intelligence-insulting argument exists nowhere else.
​
State v. Gonzalez, 154 Ohio Ap..3d 9 (Oh.App. 2003).

RODRIGO M. CARUÇO

​No. 24-0144/NA. U.S. v. Salvador Jacinto. CCA 201800325. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues:
 
I. DID THE LOWER COURT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S REMAND ORDER?
 
II. DID APPELLANT SUFFER PREJUDICE FROM THE MILITARY JUDGE'S ERRONEOUS CONTINUANCE DENIAL?

No. 24-0124/NA. United States, Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Jeremy W. Harborth, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. CCA 202200157. On consideration of Appellant/Cross-Appellee's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Judge Advocate General's Certificate for Review, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:
 
WAS THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE BY NOT SEEKING SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THE UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF CHIEF HARBORTH'S PROPERTY?

"CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. – A former Army officer and attorney assigned to the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School (JAG School) in Charlottesville pled guilty today to multiple federal charges related to his destruction of U.S. Army property and subsequent false statements to federal investigators.
Manfredo Martin-Michael Madrigal, III, 38, a former resident of Charlottesville, Va., pled guilty today to one count of destruction of U.S. Army materials and three counts of making a false statement.
According to court documents, in February 2022, Madrigal was assigned to a staff position at the JAG School in the Training Developments Directorate, whose mission was to design and develop training products for the JAG Corps and the Army.  Madrigal possessed an active security clearance and previously served overseas on sensitive operations.
In early 2022, Madrigal was under investigation by the U.S. Army and the JAG School for failing to report a previous conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). While his Army investigation was pending, Madrigal deleted, without authorization, online JAG training materials and filmed himself doing so while graphically describing his ill-will towards the Army.   The FBI’s investigation also  revealed  that Madrigal made a phone call to the Russian embassy in Washington, DC the same night that he deleted the training materials and then texted a witness that Russia wanted to know what he knew.
On February 22, 2022, Madrigal was discharged from the JAG School and claimed in his exit paperwork that he had no unreported contact with a foreign national. In April and May 2022, Madrigal was interviewed by the FBI about his actions.  In these interviews, Madrigal made multiple false statements regarding his actions, including denying any involvement in the deletion of materials and that he only learned of the deletion from a coworker, as well as falsely denying his contact with a foreign national at the Embassy.
United States Attorney Christopher R. Kavanaugh of the Western District of Virginia and Stanley M. Meador, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Richmond Division, made the announcement.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Army Counterintelligence Command, and the United States Army investigated the case.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Joyce and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Katie Burroughs Medearis, Vito A. Iaia, and Sean M. Welsh and are prosecuting the case for the United States.

Updated July 24, 2024"