National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • 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
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • 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
  • Donate

CAAFlog

Army Court of Criminal Appeals

5/2/2024

 

United States v. Clark

Deadlines are real. 
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.
The MJ focused on the justification for the delay in filing the motion, and did not address the government's additional objection of relevance and cumulativeness. Essentially, The MJ likely found and ACCA found the defense was dilatory. The possibility of IAC was not before the court.
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.
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
5/5/2024 17:31:50

Clark raised IAC as a Grostefon--ACCA held neither deficient performance nor prejudice.


Comments are closed.
    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

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal
    -2025 Ops
    ​
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    JRAP
    JRTP


    UCMJ

    Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.)
    ​
    ​
    MCM 2024
    ​
    MCM 2023

    MCM 2019
    MCM 2016
    MCM 2012
    MCM 1995

    ​
    UMCJ History

    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    J. App. Prac. & Pro.

    Dockets

    Air Force

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Army

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Coast Guard

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    ​"Records."

    Navy-Marine Corps

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    "Records."

    Archives

    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    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
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly