The victim was nine, years old at the time of appellants court-martial.I. WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE, ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE FAILED TO (1) CALL AN EXPERT, WITNESS WHO WOULD PROVIDE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTED, THE DEFENSES THEORY OF THE CASE;
Army, Civ.ruled in Woodricks favor on his contract claims.Parisi makes clear that there are many, reasons why it would be desirable if the, validity of Woodrick's enlistment, contract could be adjudicated in a, Federal District Court, rather than, before a court-martial.Woodrick v. Divich, supra.
DID THE CGCCA ERR WHEN IT REASSESSED A SENTENCE BECAUSE IT, QUESTIONED THE COAST GUARD'S DECISION TO COURT-MARTIAL A SERVICEMEMBER, WHILE A STATE TRIAL WAS PENDING FOR THE SAME ACTS, DESPITE FINDING THAT, THE COAST GUARD FOLLOWED SERVICE REGULATIONS related case.should be approved on appeal.
Appellant raised the issue before the Court of, Criminal Appeals as well as this Court, but this Court did not, grant review of the issue.urine samples from airmen returning to the base. Accordingly, we will use the, term waived instead of forfeited.
WHETHER, IN A CONTESTED COURT-MARTIAL OF A, RESERVIST, THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE, SUFFICIENT FACTS TO ESTABLISH SUBJECT MATTER, JURISDICTION OVER THE ALLEGED OFFENSE.appellant was on active duty at least up until October 28, 1997. United States v. Ornelas, 2 USCMA 96, 6 CMR 96 (1952).
account both Jackson and Miller.of the intermediate courts to order sentence-only rehearings.sufficiency under Article 66.preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.United States v. Nazario, 56 MJ 572 (A.F.Ct.Crim.App.novo review.Accordingly, we decline to overturn Turner.Criminal Appeals is set aside.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL, ERROR WHEN HE DENIED APPELLANTS MOTION TO, SUPPRESS APPELLANTS INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION THAT, WAS GIVEN AFTER A CHAPLAIN IN WHOM APPELLANT, CONFIDED UNDER MIL.R.EVID., See, e.g., United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979);
For Appellant: Major Marc A. Jones (argued); The board, further concluded that there is no evidence that supports SrA Barreto having, any mental disease or defect either before or at the time of the motor, vehicle accident, other than appellants inability to recall the accident.witnesses.
I. WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW REVIEW AND, ACTION BECAUSE THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE WHO, PREPARED THE RECOMMENDATION AND ADDENDUM WAS, DISQUALIFIED AFTER SHE TESTIFIED AS A WITNESS, REGARDING A CONTESTED MATTER AND AFTER SHE SERVED, AS A TRIAL COUNSEL IN APPELLANTS COURT-MARTIAL.
In the, instant case, the Court of Criminal Appeals similarly observed, We, understand that evidence of a civilian conviction often contains little, more than a citation to the statute the appellant was convicted of, violating and notice of the sentence imposed.
Facts, The offenses arose when appellant hosted a party in his, quarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.to appellants bedroom. A private, residence in which other persons are gathered may, be regarded as a public place for the purpose of, evaluating the character of conduct by one of the, persons.
citing Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S., 800, 817 (1988), this Court recognized that the law-of-the-case, doctrine does not preclude this Court from examining the legal, ruling of a subordinate court in a case where the Judge Advocate, General has not certified the issue.
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, ERRED WHEN IT HELD SPECIFICATION 7 OF CHARGE, III (MALTREATMENT) WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT, APPELLANT'S ACTIONS CAUSED THE ALLEGED, VICTIM ANY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL PAIN OR, SUFFERING.Article 93, UCMJ.appellants trial.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE, CONVENING AUTHORITY'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER, CLEMENCY MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE TRIAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL.recommendation.(RCM) 1107, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2000 ed.), what materials were reviewed in reaching a final decision.
sentence, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.unsworn statement.2, Although the requested instruction was not required under the circumstances, of the present case, it is well within the discretion of a military judge to, provide a more particularized instruction on the issue of remorse.
New matter does not, ordinarily include any discussion by the, staff judge advocate or legal officer of, the correctness of the initial defense, comments on the recommendation.sentence for appellant.contained therein before the convening authority, acted on appellants clemency petition.
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY GIVING A, NONSTANDARD ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION CONTRARY TO, THIS HONORABLE COURTS DECISION IN UNITED STATES, V. GILLETTE, 35 MJ 468, 470 (CMA 1992). If there is such independent, evidence, then the testimony of this witness is corroborated;
USC ยง 860. It is clear from the record and proceedings on appeal, that all parties involved in the post-trial review and appellate proceedings, have understood that appellant was asking the convening authority to waive, forfeitures under Article 58b.the sentence includes adjudged forfeitures.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REASSESSING APPELLANTS, SENTENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF A COMPLETE RECORD IN EXTENUATION, AND MITIGATION OR BY FAILING TO APPLY THE PROPER STANDARD, FOR SENTENCE REASSESSMENT TO REMEDY A TRIAL ERROR OF, CONSTITUTIONAL MAGNITUDE. United States v. Lewis, 42 MJ 1 (1995).
recommendation and the record of trial to, the convening authority for action under, RCM 1107, the staff judge advocate or legal, officer shall cause a copy of the, recommendation to be served on counsel for, the accused.detailed defense counsel.judges post-sentence comments.of harmless error.
