There have been varying conclusions on the gossip channel about why no court-martial. Regardless, a recently unceremoniously JA has been removed from the promotion year group, an event he apparently didn't appreciate. The U.S.A. for the Western District of Virginia seems to have something to say on it.
An attorney and former Army Officer assigned to the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School (JAG School) in Charlottesville, was arrested over the weekend in Arkansas and charged with cyberstalking.
U.S.A./DoJ presser here.
In the overnight hours between February 6 and 7, 2022, and while his Army discharge was pending, [he] attempted to delete, without authorization, online JAG training materials. [he] filmed himself doing so and narrated his motivations. In the video, [he] stated, “I’m gonna f*** you,” and “I’m going to bring their house down on them.” The same evening, [he] contacted Victim 1 and informed her that Russia reached out to him, wanted to know what he knew, and that he intended to travel to Russia. [His] cellphone records indicate he contacted the Russian embassy.
Mil. R. Evid. 1102 says that changes to the Fed. R. Evid. become effective "by operation of law 18 months after the effective date of such amendments, unless action to the contrary is taken by the President."
Here are some proposed changes to the Fed. R. Evid. The federal rules making process is slow.
United States v. Gilmet. MJ ruling reversed.
Appellant argues that the 2019 amendment to Article 37, UCMJ, eliminated apparent UCI as a basis for appellate relief. Effective 20 December 2019, the relevant new language in Article 37 states: “No finding or sentence of a court-martial may be held incorrect on the ground of a violation of this section [i.e., UCI] unless the vi olation materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.”We need not address whether the issue before this court involves a “finding or sentence of a court-martial,” as we find that, even if apparent UCI is still a viable basis for relief, there was no apparent UCI here.
The issue of actual UCI focuses on how and why Appellee's defense counsel were removed from the case.
The military judge ruled that Appellee’s loss of his IMC and ADC, both of whom had been on the case for over a year, demonstrated that the Government had not disproven any prejudicial effect of the alleged UCI. We disagree.
For those who have tried cases in the Middleeast or Asia, for example with local witnesses, here's something may interest you. Note, the same can happen in court or with counsel's interviews of witnesses.
Picture this. You are in a foreign country. The police arrest you and realise that you don’t speak the language. So, they organise someone to translate. If you’re lucky, the person they contact is a professional interpreter. If you’re unlucky, the person is a multilingual police officer who happens to speak your language just well enough to scrape through an interview. Either way, you are now having to talk through someone else.
Dr. Julia Shaw, Translation errors in police interviews could send innocent people to jail. Science Focus, August 14, 2022.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s finding that a claim under the FTCA is not Feres barred when the claim relates to a sexual assault committed by a servicemember against a servicemember. See Spletsoser v. Hyten. The issue arose when the Government argued that Feres barred the claim. The 9th rehearses Feres and its progeny in a helpful manner. Essentially, the court concludes that a sexual assault is not incident to service, an “alleged sexual assault [could] not conceivably serve any military purpose.”
It’s not clear exactly how long a man who called himself Barry O’Beirne lived a quiet life in Daly City, the sleepy suburb a few miles south of San Francisco. It’s also not clear what he was doing on the morning of Wednesday, June 6, 2018, when, after 35 years, Air Force special agents knocked on his door and arrested him for desertion.
When arrested he denied being a spy, explained he'd changed his name and had simply left because of depression with his life. He stayed in California under his assumed name.
The jigsaw puzzle of William Howard Hughes Jr.'s life has many missing pieces. After disappearing into thin air in 1983 he was wanted across the globe by numerous agencies, from the Air Force to the FBI to Interpol. At one point it was thought that he defected to the Russians. Some suggested he sabotaged the disastrous Challenger space shuttle launch. Even after his recent capture, much of this unlikely story remains a mystery for the ages. Here’s what we found out.
It would seem he got 45 days and a Dismissal.
Update: Defense News reports that the Senate has gone on vacation for a month, with Tia Johnson and others confirmation being held.
Update: Page S3731 of the July 28, Congressional Record, shows Senator Reed asking for unanimous consent to confirm Tia Johnson's nomination to CAAF. On page S3732, after Senator Reed discussed the importance of confirming the nomination, Senator Hawley objected. Senator Reed then moved for unanimous consent for an executive session to debate the nomination. Senator Hawley objected.
The CAAF has operated with only four active judges since C.J. Stuckey retired. The court has been asking senior judges to sit in for granted cases.
Gene Fidell has been monitoring and commenting on the affect of four v. five because petitioners, he argues, have a significantly lower chance of getting a grant with four vice five judges. See, e.g., here and here To date, 257 petitioners been affected.
President Biden has nominated Tia Johnson as the fifth CAAF judge. But her nomination has been held up.
One potential explanation can be found in Raju and Cole, Hawley says he'll hold up State and Defense Department nominess unless Blinken and Austin resign. CNN, September 14, 2021; see also, here (hawley.senat.gov); Jack Suntrap, White House criticizes Missouri Sen. Hawley for delaying Defense confirmations. Union-Bulletin, July 20, 2022 (noting Tia Johnson had cleared the Senate committee in March/April).
Sometimes it's good to keep things in perspective. A major survey of the American law professoriate just dropped its results. One question asks for the respondent's opinion of the "centrality" of a given subject, and whether it should be more central. Over 100 areas of law were included.
Military law ranked 6th from the bottom--below both animal law and ocean law. However, the professoriate considers military law to be more "central" than admiralty law.
In Bench, (the 21st published opinion this term) the issue was
[W]hether Appellant’s right to be confronted by a complaining witness was violated when trial counsel misled Appellant’s son by telling him that Appellant was not watching his son’s remote live testimony. Because Appellant failed to preserve this issue at trial, the Court must decide whether any error was plain or obvious. We hold that it was not.
[corrected] The court first discussed but did not find waiver of the issue. The court proceeded to a plain error analysis.
The Government more reasonably argues that Appellant waived this issue by operation of law under the plain language of Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 905(e) (2016 ed.). That rule provides that such claims “must be raised before the court-martial adjourned for that case and, unless otherwise provided in [the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States], failure to do so shall constitute waiver.” R.C.M. 905(e). We acknowledge that the language of the rule would appear to be dispositive on this point in the Government’s favor, but as this Court has recognized in the past, there has long been disagreement in our own precedent about whether the word “waive[d]” in R.C.M. 905(e) actually means “waived” (as defined by the Supreme Court in Olano, 507 U.S. at 733), or instead means “forfeited” (the failure to preserve an issue by timely objection). See Hardy, 77 M.J. at 441–42 (noting the disagreement in this Court’s precedents); id. at 445 (Ohlson, J., dissenting) (same). Two of our more recent precedents lead us to conclude that regardless how one interprets the word “waive[d]” in R.C.M. 905(e), that rule does not extinguish a claim when there has been plain error.
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal views and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.