Petitioner seeks extraordinary relief from a ruling of the military judge, denying petitioners motion to compel appointment of an expert consultant to the, petitioners defense team in the form of an attorney learned in the law of capital, litigation. See Dew v. United States, 48 M.J.
For Petitioner: Captain Majessire Smith, JA (on brief and reply brief)., R. Evid., The rule yields that very result in this case, where the trial counsel went to great, lengths to procure petitioners mental health records—presumably for the purpose of, offering them as evidence at trial.
United States v. Baker, 70 M.J. Again, the military judges findings of fact are, silent on the motions hearing testimony, so it is difficult to see how the military, judge weighed the accuseds testimony, or whether he even considered it, as part of, his totality of the circumstances analysis.
Miss ZC was interviewed.The Supreme Court has explained that in the Miranda context custodial, interrogation means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a, person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in, any significant way., 564 U.S. at 272.
For Petitioner United States: Captain Catharine M. Parnell, JA (on brief); Military Rule of Evidence 412 focuses not, on the types of evidence (e.g. clothing) to be admitted, but the purpose for which the, evidence sought to be introduced will be offered. 412, this was not the, defenses motion.
For Petitioner: Mr. William E. Cassara, Esquire (on brief)., Specifically, the information related to CPT KB allegedly paying a discounted rate, for unrelated legal services, to petitioners defense counsel, in exchange for, favorable testimony in petitioners court-martial. 2008) (Denedo I);
30 January 2018, OPINION OF THE COURT AND ACTION ON, PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF IN, THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;, United States v. Luke, (Luke II), 69 M.J.Accordingly, we hold we do not have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to, consider petitioners claims.
ARMY MISC 20170644, For Petitioner: Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA;, On 6 February 2018, we issued an order directing petitioner to submit supporting, documents substantiating the basis of his writ of mandamus to this court.Senior Judge CAMPANELLA and Judge SALUSSOLIA concur.
ARMY MISC 20170643, For Petitioner: Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA; On 6 February, 2018, we issued an order directing petitioner to submit supporting documents, substantiating the basis of his writ of mandamus to this court., Judge HAGLER and Judge SCHASBERGER concur.
In this case petitioner alleges that further prosecution is prohibited by the, Double Jeopardy Clause or that the court-martial lacks jurisdiction to try him for the, charges currently pending at the court-martial. In United States v. Von Bergen, 67 M.J.Judge SALUSSOLIA and Judge FEBBO concur.
807 to admit JCs, statements to KH. The rule affords, trial counsel twenty days from the date written notice of appeal is filed with the trial, court to forward the appeal, including an original and two copies of the record of, trial to the representative of the Government designated by TJAG.
*, The government also seeks to introduce portions of a DNA report evidencing, semen from appellee on Ms. BBs undergarment and testimony of Ms. BB, both of, which the government believes evidences uncharged misconduct occurring on or, about 5 June 2016. See Rule for Courts-Martial 908(c)(3).
For Appellant: Major Todd W. Simpson, JA; With regard to certain specifications and, specified legal issues, appellant (both personally and through counsel) stated that he, waived certain legal errors. This court must still conduct a review of the entire, record under Article 66(c), UCMJ.
For Appellant: Major Jack D. Einhorn, JA; As the unit had a four-day, weekend approaching, his platoon sergeant asked appellant if he had any plans. The convening authority referred the case to a special, court-martial.At sentencing, the government requested a sentence of six months, confinement.
6, Army Reg. [a] dismissal.) 1107(c)(1)(B)(i) (action on findings); While this courts Article 66, UCMJ, jurisdiction turns on the accuseds, sentence, it is based on the sentence approved by the convening authority under, Article 60, UCMJ, not on the sentence as modified by the Secretarys designee.
Our review of the entire record, to include the length of, pre-trial confinement as compared to the adjudged sentence, appellants record of, service and other matters presented by appellant in extenuation and mitigation (to, include Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M. United States v. Alston, 75 M.J.
21 December 2018 Factually, appellants case is straightforward. When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is premised, on counsels failure to make a motion to suppress evidence, an appellant must show, that there is a reasonable probability that such a motion would have been, meritorious.
, Rule for Courts-Martial 916(h). Overall, our review of the entire record, to include the, testimony of a JFK customs agent who handled appellant, convinces us that his, absence was terminated by apprehension, when he was detained after an initial, screening revealed a warrant for his arrest.
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.
For Appellant: Major Todd W. Simpson, JA;This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ.) 1105, matters that warrants discussion, but not relief. On 21 June 2017, charges of AWOL, desertion, and possession of a controlled, substance were referred to a general court-martial.
