j. Defense counsel effected this strategy through, LCDR Daviss unsworn statement, LCDR Tinkers, sentencing argument, and the defenses tailored, sentencing instruction on the effect of a dismissal.whether Davis would be eligible to seek TERA retirement.counsels actions.trial or sentencing strategy.
, 2, More specifically, we granted review of the following issue:, Whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, erred by applying the wrong standard of review when it, reversed the military judges decision to dismiss the, charge and specification with prejudice proceed in this case.
WHETHER THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN, CONCLUDING THAT DEFENSE COUNSELS ERRONEOUS, REQUEST TO SUSPEND FORFEITURES AND THE STAFF, JUDGE ADVOCATES ERRONEOUS ADVICE, RECOMMENDING SUCH ACTION DID NOT PREJUDICE, APPELLANT WHEN HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PAY.Appellants family.and obvious error.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT, APPELLANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SUBMIT CLEMENCY MATTERS, IN HIS SECOND POST-TRIAL REVIEW PROCESS. Rule for action, the convening authority is not limited to considering for counsel to proceed without ensuring that Appellant had made
SSgt Archer and Senior Airman Hovancik.Courts decision in United States v. Davis, 47 M.J.he used the firearm in such a manner. Appellant did not, contest that the weapon was functional and there is no evidence in the record, suggesting that it was, or might have been, nonfunctional.(A) Generally.
WHETHER THE OFFENSE TO WHICH APPELLANT PLEADED GUILTY IN, THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II (STORE STOLEN EXPLOSIVE, MATERIALS IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. ยง 842(h)) EXCEEDED, CONGRESSS AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE, CONSTITUTION IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, 514 U.S., 549 (1995)
the confinement facility.unduly rigorous circumstances during pretrial detention.including Kings status as a maximum custody inmate.confinement was a form of punishment or penalty .his pretrial confinement.imposed upon some prisoners who have been, sentenced to hard labor.
seize a hair sample from Appellant for further testing.Appellants urinalysis.analyze hair for evidence of drug use., Consequently, such hair analysis may be used to prove, binge use as well as multiple and/or chronic use of, controlled substances.analysis could detect a single use of cocaine.
6, Kreutzers case was referred to the Army Court of Criminal, Appeals on September 27, 1996.nonconstitutional trial error. United States v. Kreutzer, 59 M.J. Third, why is the defense counsel unable to, gather and present the evidence that the expert, assistant would be able to develop.
review for issues under M.R.E.[W]hen a military judge commits error by giving this, instruction over defense objection in the absence of, articulated case-specific interests of justice, a, presumption of prejudice results.accordance with decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals.friendly rules.
In most instances in which an appellant files an, affidavit in the Court of Criminal Appeals making a, claim such as ineffective assistance of counsel at, trial, the authority of the Court to decide that legal, issue without further proceedings should be clear.United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J.
TRIAL COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS, UNCONTROVERTED AND UNCONTRADICTED.At trial, Appellee contested the indecent assault charge.the defense would call one witness.The facts in this case are clear, the, uncontradicted testimony.1, This Court recognized in United States v. Houser, 36 M.J.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTED TO ILLEGAL, PRETRIAL PUNISHMENT AND DENIED DUE PROCESS, OF LAW WHEN HIS PAY WAS STOPPED WHILE HE WAS, IN PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT AFTER THE END OF HIS, OBLIGATED SERVICE.pretrial confinement past the EAS date.DoD FMR 010302.G.4. Confined Awaiting Trial by Court-Martial.
further review.United States v. Smith, 94 F.3d 204, 209 (6th Cir. This court, adopted the Barker four-part analysis with respect to post-, trial speedy disposition claims, and I would include in, that analysis the Doggett presumption of prejudice in those, instances where delay is excessive.
Government and an evaluation requested by the defense.statements made by Appellant during his sanity board. While the military judge did not, allow the report to be admitted into evidence, he did allow the, trial counsel to elicit Appellants statements from Dr. Marrero, during direct examination.
For Appellant: Captain Anthony D. Ortiz, (argued);WHETHER APPELLANTS GUILTY PLEA TO, WRONGFULLY USING NITROUS OXIDE UNDER, CLAUSE 1 OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, WAS, IMPROVIDENT.United States v. Kick, 7 M.J.Article 112a, capable of producing a mind-altered state.service-discrediting conduct, see 29 M.J.
, MORE SPECIFICALLY, (1) CAN AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER, APPROVE PRETRIAL DELAY TO BE EXCLUDED UNDER R.C.M.trial under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.until the expiration of the Article 35 waiting period. 4 (discussion).window of defense-requested delay.opinions result, though not its reasoning.
WHETHER THE RECORD OF TRIAL FAILS TO SHOW THAT, APPELLANT MADE A PERSONAL ELECTION OF FORUM, THUS, CREATING A JURISDICTIONAL ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL. So do you, understand the difference between trial before a court with members, and trial before a court by military judge alone appellants choice.
The appellant avers that on 12 August 2002, a week, after his court-martial ended, the trial counsel, notified the trial defense counsel by memorandum that, a statement contained in the FBIs probable cause, affidavit was untrue. This e-mail contained two, child pornography images.Criminal Appeals.
, The military judge also concluded that, in light of, the evidence admitted at trial about the relationship, between A1C Wheeler and Amn Wesolowski, the additional, evidence would not have had a substantial contributing, effect on the findings of guilty or the sentence.other issues in this case;
