WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE, EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE VACATION HEARING WAS SUFFICIENT, TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF MISCONDUCT WHERE THE SPCMCA APPLIED, A PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENTIARY STANDARD AND WHERE IT IS, UNCLEAR WHAT STANDARD WAS APPLIED BY THE GCMCA. Miley at 6.
Appellants statement. Agent Grabman observed two of the transfers of, firearms from PO Moore to PO Rodriguez;Upon being detailed I attempted to make, contact with [Appellant] to discuss matters, in the case, most importantly [first, detailed defense counsels] proposed release, as defense counsel.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY, FAILING TO FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE OF, APPELLANTS GUILT TO CHARGE II, (PERJURY) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY, INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT, FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE, DOUBT THAT THE FIRST TRIAL HAD BEEN, PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.trial on the drug offenses.
WHETHER UNDER ARTICLE 66(A), UCMJ, THE PANEL, REVIEWING THE PETITIONERS CASE IS PROPERLY, ASSIGNED, AND WHETHER THERE CAN BE TWO CHIEF, JUDGES OF THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF, CRIMINAL APPEALS., Given Colonel Dormans recusal, there is no, Chief Judge with regard to these cases.assignments.
of a court-martial.reasonableness of appellate delay. APPELLANT SUFFERED PREJUDICE DUE TO AN INORDINATE POST-, TRIAL DELAY OF OVER 790 DAYS BETWEEN THE DATE OF TRIAL AND THE, DATE THAT HIS CASE WAS FORWARDED TO THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT, OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.
the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that ruling. Order No. 12968, 60 Fed.appeal relating to the request for a security clearance is moot.to discuss classified information with his defense counsel.authorized access as part of his military duties.preparing a defense.judge is reversed.
Judge BAKER delivered the opinion of the Court.of the statement. (3) Appellant did not object;United States v. Powell, 49 M.J.prejudice.appeals to race or ethnicity.cases of improper racial argument.Appellants sentence.judge, may deny an accused a fair trial.obvious error.or sentencing authority.
UNEXPLAINED, AND DILATORY, BUT REFUSED TO, CONSIDER THIS ERROR IN ANALYZING THE, APPROPRIATENESS OF APPELLANTS SENTENCE, BECAUSE IT RULED THAT THE ERROR WAS WAIVED.authority. Trial defense, counsel must make a timely request for, speedy post-trial processing, if that is, what appellant desires.
Williams might not be able to make restitution before trial.Government as to the victims and amounts at issue.months that serves as the basis for Williams' appeal.(3) when inquiry by the military judge discloses a, disagreement as to a material term in the agreement;the pretrial agreement.
when Seider provided and used cocaine. That can generally, be accomplished through reference in the substituted, language to a relevant date or other facts in evidence, that will clearly put the accused and the reviewing, courts on notice of what conduct served as the basis, for the findings.
Chief Judge CRAWFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.pretrial confinement., 1976) AND UNITED STATES V. KING, 3 M.J.without Appellants consent;motions as a permissible plea agreement term.provisions of every pretrial agreement, and McFadyen, 51 M.J.
defense counsel, Come back tomorrow and Ill have the .the potential command influence issue.the defense called Chief Metheny as a witness.the testimony of Lieutenant Maye.command decision to court-martial Appellant.generally United States v. Stombaugh, 40 M.J.Lieutenant Weber.different remedy.
The specification of possession of OxyContin should, be dismissed as a lesser included offense of use of, OxyContin;As a result [of failing in his drug and alcohol, rehabilitation program], LCDR Bowers canceled, [Appellees] leave and reinstated a previous order to, pre-trial restriction.
236 (1997), PROVIDE, THE PROPER DECISIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING ANY ISSUE, RAISED IN A POST-TRIAL AFFIDAVIT, INCLUDING ISSUES RAISED, UNDER UNITED STATES V. GROSTEFON, 12 M.J.granting sentence relief under United States v. Wheelus, 49 M.J.of the Ginn framework to Fagan's claim.specific facts.
the article. 1106 (requiring staff judge, advocates or legal officers recommendations in all general, court-martial cases and special court-martial cases resulting in, a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year).convening authority concerning Appellants clemency request.authoritys action.
the service plan attached to the Family Courts May 7 order.Appellants wife to the Ward residence.At Ms. Wongs request, SSgt Walker came to the office. See Boyd, 27 M.J.the immunized testimony.Walker, that Appellant wanted to make a statement to NCIS.untainted by Appellants statement to Ms. Wong.
obscene language that renders this offense punishable.I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING, APPELLANTS PLEA OF GUILTY TO DEPOSITING OBSCENE, MATTERS IN THE MAIL WHERE THE RECORD DISCLOSES A, SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THAT PLEA., [The judge repeats the definition he stated earlier.
direct payment to a dependent under Article 58b.In exchange for the accuseds pleas of, guilty, the convening authority will defer, any and all reductions and forfeitures until, sentence is approved, suspend any and all, adjudged and waive any and all automatic, reductions and forfeitures;
Given Chief Wilts honest belief that ETSA, Voitleins expressed concerns about Appellant actually, having illegal drugs in their barracks room were, unreasonable, we conclude that Chief Wilts directions, did not make ETSA Voitlein a Government agent on a, quest for incriminating evidence.
1, The suspended portion of Quicks sentence terminates 12 months, after he is released from confinement. This, requires showing that counsels errors were, so serious as to deprive the defendant of a, fair trial, a trial whose result is, reliable.of counsel.defense counsel.Criminal Appeals.
