In Salinas, a writ on behalf of a complaining witness, the court denies the writ.
On 25 May 2022, pursuant to Article 6b(e), UCMJ, Petitioner filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus to Quash Order to Produce Victim for Testimony at Mil. R. Evid. 412 Hearing and Application For a Stay of Proceedings. Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus vacating the trial court’s ruling that Petitioner’s testimony is necessary and relevant to the Article 39(a) session scheduled for 1 June 2022, vacating the trial court’s order for Petitioner’s production and testimony at the Article 39(a) session, and denying the Accused’s motion for a hearing under Mil. R. Evid. 412.
The court finds that testimony in a motion is not equivalent to a deposition.
The MJ and VLC are trusted to follow the law.
There is no clear and indisputable right to the writ.
Could the court have also said that nothing in Article 6b gives an alleged victim the right to testify or not to testify, they are after all a witness. The only right to participate or not is UCMJ art. 6b(a)(4)(B), 10 U.S.C. § 806b(a)(4)(B) which provides a right to be reasonably heard--during presentencing.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Army Crim. L. Deskbook