WHERE UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ARE, RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE DURING A PUBLIC, ARTICLE 32 [UCMJ] HEARING, MAY THE, CONVENING AUTHORITY OR OTHER PRESIDING, OFFICER DENY PUBLIC ACCESS TO THOSE, DOCUMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC, ON-THE-RECORD FINDINGS THAT SUCH DENIAL—EFFECTIVELY, SEALING THE DOCUMENTS—IS NECESSARY TO, FURTHER A COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, THAT OVERRIDES THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND IS, NARROWLY TAILORED TO FURTHER THAT, INTEREST., B. IS THE GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING, AUTHORITY,...
See R.C.M. 701(a). 4, As petitioner seeks the right to release the documents himself without the redaction, of sensitive matter (such as social security numbers, graphic photos, or medical, records), the relief petitioner seeks goes far beyond the case-by-case evaluation, required by Powell. 6, BERGDAHL – ARMY MISC 20150624 Lastly, a rule that provided for the automatic publication of all matter, submitted to an Article 32 hearing appears to be contrary to the Military Rules of, Evidence and...
The defense asserted that the DNA, analysis conducted by the KCPCL and which the government seeks to introduce, does not meet the requirements for expert testimony established by [Military Rule, of Evidence] 702, United States v. Houser [36 M.J. The SWGDAM Guidelines are mostly that: guidelines.
A panel consisting of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-, martial convicted appellant, contrary to his plea, of one specification of, communicating a threat in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military, Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ].
While review of Army Regulation 600-20 on the subject of, unrestricted reporting suggests that the details of the reported assault communicated, to a victim advocate in a case of an unrestricted report would not be privileged under, Mil. 513 apply to matters, under Mil.
For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Without, additional evidence, there is not a sufficient basis for accepting the plea under, Clause 1 of Article 134, UCMJ because the record before us does not clearly, establish the charged offense was prejudicial to good order and discipline.
In the instant case, we have definitively concluded, that appellant was not informed of his Article 31 rights before he made the statement, that formed the basis of his false official statement charge. 3, We need not address whether the offered amnesty would have been valid and, binding if appellant and his cohort had come clean when provided the opportunity. 4, HOEFT—ARMY 20140827 In further evaluating the issue before us, we find Swift to be particularly, illuminating.
For Appellee: Major A.G. Courie, III, JA. 10 August 2015, SUMMARY DISPOSITION, COOK, Senior Judge: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant consistent with his pleas, of making a false statement, soliciting another to commit, an offense, and wrongfully receiving and concealing military property of a value of, more than $500.00, in violation of Articles 107 and 134, Uniform Code of Military, Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C.
For Appellee: Major A.G. Courie III, JA. 30 September 2015, SUMMARY DISPOSITION, WEIS, Judge: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of failure to obey a lawful general order and two specifications, of wrongful distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of Articles 92 and, 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.
Appellant claims that twenty of the 782 images charged as child pornography, are not child pornography under the law and facts and requests this court therefore, amend the specification accordingly and reassess the sentence. see also United States v. Finch, 73 M.J.
United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. As a result, a, minimum of nine months of appellants sentence to confinement was based solely on, those violations, for which appellant already received a general officer letter of, reprimand filed in his official file two years earlier. See UCMJ arts.
appellant entered into a pretrial agreement wherein he pleaded guilty to certain, offenses, including Article 128, UCMJ, assault consummated by battery, a lesser-, included offense of Article 120, in exchange for a cap on his sentence to, confinement. United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. See UCMJ arts.
16 December 2015 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of robbery, one specification of assault, consummated by a battery, one specification of assault with an unloaded firearm one specification of burglary, and one specification of obstruction of justice, in, violation of Articles 122, 128, 129, and 134 Uniform Code of Military Justice, [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C.
For Appellant: Major Yolanda McCray Jones, JA;Our superior court has previously applied the same time and place value, aggregation principle of larceny to a violation of Article 109, UCMJ, damage to, nonmilitary property. United States v. Collins, 16 U.S.C.M.A., The sentence is AFFIRMED.
We, likewise, find it was not necessary in this case for the military judge to, discuss waiver of the statute of limitations with appellant as his admitted desertion, in December 2007 was in a time of war—at least for purposes of Article 43, UCMJ., United States v. Anderson, 17 U.S.C.M.A.
30 April 2015 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, HAIGHT, Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court -martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of knowingly and wrongfully distributing, child pornography and one specification of knowingly and wrongfully possessing, child pornography, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10, U.S.C.
For Appellee: Major Daniel D. Derner, JA. 18 August 2015 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, TOZZI, Senior Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of three specifications of failure to go to his appointed place, of duty, two specifications of absence without leave, and two specifications of, wrongful use of cocaine in violation of Articles 86 and 112a Uniform Code of, Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.
This analysis is made somewhat, easier by the fact that appellants remaining conviction for premeditated murder, carries with it a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison (with parole) ., Accordingly, after considering the gravamen of the remaining offense and the other, Winckelmann factors, we are satisfied that even absent appellants maiming, conviction, the military judge would have adjudged a sentence of at least the, severity of that which was originally imposed at appellants trial.
MANLEY, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20140381 Headquarters, United States Army Alaska, Douglas Watkins, Military Judge, Colonel Tyler J. Harder, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial), Colonel Erik L. Christiansen, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Amy Nieman, JA; Captain Brian D., Andes, JA (on brief).
Appellants case is now before this court pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ.Appellant entered a plea of guilty by exceptions and substitutions to, Specification 1 of Additional Charge III, in which he was charged with sexually, abusing a child by sending her lewd text messages.
