For Petitioner: Captain Samuel E. Landes, JA (argued);Second, Dietz was a civil case.a. Rule for Courts-Martial 924 : Reconsideration, At oral argument, counsel for the accused argued that the military judge was, exercising his inherent authority to allow the members to reconsider their findings.
In this case, we analyze personal jurisdiction over appellee, a member of the, reserve component, who allegedly committed criminal acts between periods of, inactive-duty training (IDT). Appellee attended all five UTAs and, signed in and out at the beginning and end of each day.
The request specified that, other digital items seized should be searched for child pornography and e-mails online chats, online messages, and other forms of communication between appellant, and the alleged victim. 2, On 19 June 2014, military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted, appellant, consistent with his pleas, of one specification of making a false official, statement, and contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of taking indecent, liberties with a child and two...
The United States filed a timely appeal, with this court pursuant to Article 62, UCMJ, contending the military judge abused, his discretion in excluding evidence under Military Rule of Evidence [hereinafter, Mil.intercourse. United States v. Baker, 70 M.J.preparation, motive, and intent.
Specifically, petitioner asks this court to, issue a writ of prohibition to order the defense team to abide by the automatic stay, pursuant to Rule[] for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 908(b)(4) and the formal stay issued, by this court and abide by the protective orders issued by the convening authority which are still in effect pending further litigation. The petition of the United States for extraordinary relief in the nature of a, writ of prohibition is hereby DENIED.,
Under the parameters set by the trial judge, the government is able to fully, exercise its right to claim that disclosure of certain classified information would be, detrimental to national security at any stage of the proceedings, including occasions, when defense counsel seek access to classified information without pre-clearance, from trial counsel and/or the OCA or the head or designee, of the executive or, military department or government agency concerned [hereinafter agency head or,...
Accordingly, the 2, The preamble to the rules of court state that the rules are promulgated under, R.C.M. 108 and 801(b) and are binding upon all judges and counsel and are intended, to promote an orderly, expeditious, and just disposition of court-martial cases, . . . . We find that Rule 1.1 creates a default rule of excludable delay in order to, avoid uneccessary litigation and is made with the understanding that after referral the government no longer has control over when an accused is...
United States v. Baker, 70 M.J.Concerning the ruling that Investigator BT infringed appellees Fifth, Amendment right against self-incrimination, we are uncertain what the military, judge relied on in determining the appellee used a PIN or passcode to unlock his, iPhone.
1 In clarified findings and conclusions, dated 17 May 2016, the military judge, concluded: appellee first requested counsel while in custody; appellee was also in, custody when Military Police (MP) investigators reinitiated interrogation; there, was insufficient time for terminat[ing] any lingering effects or to dissipate the, coercive effects of the prior interrogation; and based on the totality of the, circumstances appellee provided no knowing or intelligent waiver of his right to, counsel.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, HAIGHT, PENLAND, and WOLFE, Appellate Military Judges DB, by and through Captain RANDY L. JOHNSON Special Victim Counsel, v., Colonel JEFFERY D. LIPPERT, Military Judge, Respondent Sergeant OTIS R. DUCKSWORTH
24 February 2015 – Trial counsel follows up on the status of the, HIPPA waiver request with defense counsel 26 February 2015 – Defense counsel sends appellees HIPPA waiver, to Butner FMC.
For Appellant: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA;After review pursuant to Article 62, UCMJ, this court concluded that the, military judge abused his discretion in failing to grant the delay and exclude the, time to conduct the second R.C.M. 706 inquiry requested by, defense was necessary and justified.
Army, Reg.Though not raised by appellant, we recognize, in light of Hills, the military, judge committed constitutional error in granting government counsels motion to, consider evidence of certain charged offenses as evidence of appellants propensity, to commit other charged offenses.
For Appellant: Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA;The convening authority took action fifty-six days after the sentence was, adjudged, but it took forty-one additional days after convening authority action for, this court to receive the record of trial and two days to docket appellants case. UCMJ art.
For Appellant: Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA;The convening authority took action fifty-six days after the sentence was, adjudged, but it took forty-one additional days after convening authority action for, this court to receive the record of trial and two days to docket appellants case. UCMJ art.
For Appellant: Major Andres Vazquez, Jr., 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.
We are able to reassess the, sentence on the basis of the error noted and do so after conducting a thorough, analysis of the totality of circumstances presented by appellants case and in, accordance with the principles articulated by our superior court in United States v., Winckelmann, 73 M.J.
In accordance with the amendments to Article 60 UCMJ, implemented by Section 1702 of the National, Defense Authorization Act of 2014 and R.C.M., 1107(d)(1)(A) and 1107(d)(1)(B), you may not disapprove commute, or suspend, in whole or in part, any portion of, an adjudged sentence of confinement for more than six (6), months or disapprove, commute, or suspend that portion of, an adjudged sentence that includes a Dismissal Dishonorable Discharge, or Bad-Conduct Discharge.
JONES, United States Army, Petitioner, v., Commandant, Midwest Joint Regional Correction Facility, Respondent, &, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ARMY MISC 20160063 Headquarters, United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence and Fort Benning, Charles A. Kuhfahl, Jr., Military Judge, Colonel Charles C. Poche, Staff Judge Advocate For Petitioner: Captain Amanda R. McNeil Williams, JA; Philip D. Cave, Esquire, (on brief).
United States v. Banks, 75 M.J. 2002) ([Pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, service courts are], required to determine what findings and sentence should be approved, based on all, the facts and circumstances reflected in the record, including the unexplained and, unreasonable post-trial delay.
