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.

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.”

Cheers, Phil Cave

President Donald Trump demanded that the military recall two retired four-star officers who criticized him so they could be court-martialed, a new book says.
According to a copy of ex-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s memoir, A Sacred Oath, obtained by TPM, Trump demanded that former Gen. Stan McChrystal and former Navy Admiral William H. McRaven be recalled into active duty so that they could be court-martialed for criticizing the President.

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.

​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.

​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.

​After about five hours of deliberation Friday and an overnight break, Jimenez — the chief circuit military judge with the Air Force Trial Judiciary, Western Circuit, at Travis Air Force Base, California — ruled Cooley is guilty of forcibly kissing the woman, the first specification in a single charge of abusive sexual contact. He is not guilty of two other specifications of groping her and moving her hand to touch his genitals over his clothes, she said.

Former Army officer AV2 was allegedly sexually assaulted by Master Sergeant Clinton Murray and is a witness in Murray's upcoming military court trial. The military judge overseeing Murray's case ruled that certain communications between AV2 and a Department of Veterans Affairs psychotherapist were not protected from disclosure under the Military Rules of Evidence. AV2 sought relief in the two military appellate courts, but both affirmed the military judge's ruling.
AV2 now asks the Court to "revise and correct" what she believes all three military courts got wrong. The Defendants moved to dismiss the case, and the Court, after reviewing the parties' briefing and holding oral argument, grants the Motion. Some of AV2's claims are barred by sovereign and judicial immunities, while the Court lacks subject matter and equitable jurisdiction to review the rest. With isolated exceptions not applicable here, Article III courts do not have the authority to review military judges' rulings.

Unit commanders in the Navy and Marine Corps will no longer have investigative authority over sexual harassment allegations, according to a department-wide message sent Friday by Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro.
​
Effective immediately, the message says, commanding officers must escalate complaints to the next higher-level commander, who will then appoint an investigating officer. That investigator should be from outside the command and "shall not be familiar with the subject or the complainant," the message says.

Today, Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA), Chair of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personal and Co-Chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, and Congressman Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), were joined by Representatives Veronica Escobar (D-TX), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Sylvia Garica (D-TX), Tony Gonzales (R-TX), and Anthony Brown (D-MD), in introducing the Sexual Harassment Independent Investigations and Prosecutions (SHIIP) Act to remove sexual harassment from the military chain of command. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Chair of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower, is introducing her companion legislation today as well, which marks the two-year anniversary of the murder of Army SPC Vanessa Guillén.
. . . 
Specifically, the SHIIP Act extends protections against sexual harassment that Chair Speier secured in the FY22 NDAA, but were stripped out in conference.

[T]he bill would:

• Move prosecutorial decisions for sexual harassment from commanders to the new special trial counsel, created by the FY22 NDAA, so that independent military attorneys decide which sex-related offenses go to court-martial, and
• Require that the new, independent sexual harassment investigators created by the FY22 NDAA are outside of the chain of command of the victim and the subject and are trained in investigating sexual harassment.