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
  • Events
  • 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
  • Events
  • Contact Us

CAAFlog

Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals--Halter

5/6/2022

 
Another case exploring some limits on victim impact statements.

United States v. Halter.

Appellant pled guilty to one specification of assault consummated by a battery, one specification of reckless endangerment, two specifications of assault upon an intimate partner, and an additional specification of assault consummated by a battery. He was sentenced to six months confinement, RiR, a BCD and a reprimand.

After returning from post-trial error corrections the court took up four issues.

(1) MJ erred by letting the victim present improper victim impact information in the victim’s unsworn statement. (No plain error.)
Appellant contends that the MJ erred when he allowed LV to discuss an uncharged offense in her unsworn statement to the military judge. Specifically, Appellant argues that LV’s unsworn statement was focused on threatening comments he made to her after the last incident that were not charged, and additionally, that the threatening comments were not tied to the offenses to which Appellant pleaded guilty.
. . .
LV’s unsworn statement included comments she attributed as threats he directed at her after the charged conduct. LV’s unsworn statement did not contain the word “threat,” nor did she at any point ask the military judge to punish Appellant for threating her the direct physical pain the assaults caused, and the emotional, psychological and financial fall-out that she experienced post-assault. Part of the social and psychological pain included Appellant’s behavior towards her in the days immediately following the assaults. As a direct result of the assaults, LV tried to end her relationship with Appellant, who responded by continuing his controlling behavior towards her and prolonging her psychological harm. Therefore, we find that the victim’s description of the impact in this case was closely related to the charged offenses, and thus was proper victim impact material, as it pertained to the psychological impact she experienced following the assault.
​(2) TC committed prosecutorial misconduct during her sentencing argument by arguing that the Appellant should be sentenced based on an uncharged offense.
Trial counsel then argued:

     [LV] stood before you today and told you that although the physical pain from her assault diminished that she still suffered extreme emotional trauma. She was forced to leave her life in Wichita Falls because [Appellant] was making threats against her, and she feared for her own safety. She lost her job, she lost her friends, she lost her school, and most importantly she lost her sense of security. And why? Because that day she chose to focus on her schoolwork as opposed to showering [Appellant] with the undivided attention that he required at the exact moment that he required it.

At the close of trial counsel’s argument, she discussed the need for the sentence to protect society from Appellant. She stated that “6 months’ confinement is the most appropriate punishment when considering the protection of society, especially given the threats that were made here. It would provide the victims with a sense of psychological well-being to know that [Appellant] can’t cause any more harm while he’s in jail.”

​There being no objection the court looked through the plain error lens and found no error, and even if there was there was no prejudice.

Cheers, Phil Cave

Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

4/28/2022

 
United States v. Payan.
The record of trial in Appellant’s case is returned to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, for correction under R.C.M. 1112(d) to account for the missing audio of the closed session of court, missing Appellate Exhibit VI, and any other portion of the record that is determined to be missing or defective hereafter, after consultation with the parties.
United States v. Cooper.
​The record of trial in Appellant’s case is returned to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, for correction under R.C.M. 1112(d) to account for the complete and correct version of Prosecution Exhibit 9, complete version of Appellate Exhibit LIX, and any other portion of the record that is determined to be missing or defective hereafter, after consultation with the parties.

Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals--U.S. v. Lattin

4/28/2022

0 Comments

 
​We received a comment that,
​Requiring a search authorization to be limited to seizing evidence of only a specific crime seems inconsistent with established caselaw. An authorization to search a residence for a missing person allows the investigators to look anywhere in the residence that a person could be hidden, but allows them to seize any evidence of any crime that they find as long as they find that evidence in a place that a person could be (ie in a closet, not a desk drawer). This ruling is basically saying 'ignore the corpses of dead children, you are only allowed to seize evidence of drug possession' This is a huge change.

Read More
0 Comments

United States v. Wermuth--AFCCA

4/2/2022

 
Wermuth revisits AFCCA after a remand to correct post-trial issues. He will be back for a third. Initially the CA had "failed to take action on the sentence." However, when the case was redocketed, "the re-docketed record of trial contains no [no corrected CA action].  Instead, where this document should appear, there is an 8 September 2021 corrected “Convening Authority Decision on Action” for a different appellant’s case."

The court remands the case back to the field.

United States v. Prescott--AFCCA

4/1/2022

 
Prescott was convicted by members of attempted larceny and a false official statement; for which he was Dismissed. Appellant submitted a claim in the Defense Personal Property System (DPS)4 in excess of $32,000.00 for 168 items he claimed had been either damaged or were missing as a result of the move; Appellant received $16,309.22 for his claim.

Appellant raises the following issues

(1) Legal and factual sufficiency.
(2) Abuse of discretion by permitting the Government to offer evidence of Appellant’s 2011 household goods claim under Mil. R. Evid. 404(b).
(3) Improper trial counsel  argument on findings.
(4) Sentence appropriateness.
(5) Commander of Space Operations Command, United States Space Force, lacked jurisdiction to take action on Appellant’s sentence.
(6) Do the charged victim’s subrogation and charge-back agreements with its agents render Appellant’s conviction for attempted larceny legally and factually insufficient.
(7) Error by granting the Government’s challenge for cause against a court member.
(8) The finding of guilty to attempted larceny was ambiguous.
(9) The court-martial ceased to be properly convened when 14th Air Force—the convening command—was redesignated Space Operations Command.
(10) Unreasonable post-trial delay.
(11) The unanimity issue.
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal views 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

    CAAFlog 1.0
    CAAFlog 2.0

    Archives

    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly