Court of Appeals for the Armed ForcesThe Daily Journal for Oct, 12, 2021, reflects that the court is clearing out the Brubaker-Escobar trailer park. Also from the Miscellaneous Docket. No. 22-0009/AR. AV2, Appellant v. John H. Cook, Colonel, U.S. Army, Appellee and Clinton Murray, Master Sergeant, U.S. Army, Real Party in Interest. CCA 20210409. Notice is given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date. Some of the filings and Orders at ACCA are here.
Military Rule of Evidence 513 gives patients a privilege to prevent others "from disclosing a confidential communication made between the patient and a psychotherapist ... if such communication was made for the purpose of facilitating diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental or emotional condition." Mil. R. Evid. 513(a). As noted in the military judge's ruling, petitioner's PTSD questionnaire is an internal Veteran's Administration document used to assess claims for disability benefits, and not for the purposes of treatment. We also take note of the military judge's observations that the form refers to petitioner as a "claimant" vice a "patient" and the document contains the disclaimer, "Please note that this questionnaire is for disability evaluation, not for treatment purposes." Air Force Court of Criminal AppealsUnited States v. Harrington. An officer panel convicted appellant of involuntary manslaughter and communicating a threat; he also pled guilty to using cocaine and marijuana more than once. Appellant was sentenced to 14 years, a DD, and RIR. There are a few AOEs.
The findings and sentence are affirmed. Judge Cadotte concurred but wrote separately to state disagreement with the finding of no error in the conduct of the unsworn victim statements. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military ReviewSince January 1, 2021, the Appellant in nine cases has withdrawn from appellate review--out of 244 cases "decided." There also have been 156 summary dispositions (generally meaning that there are no issues raised or of significant merit to be addressed.) In 2020, zero appellants withdrew from appellate review. In 2019, one appellant withdrew from appellate review. Are these interesting numbers? Do they mean anything? Worth the readProf. Corey Yung's Sex Crimes: Second Edition is now available online. Note. "The included material is either public domain, Creative Commons, or included with the copyright owner's permission. The book itself is released under a Creative Commons license which you can find at the beginning of the book. I encourage editing, revising, and distributing under those permissive terms." LtCol Scheller's guilty plea is reported here. Among those testifying on his behalf were Rep. Louie Gohmert (R.-Tex.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), two of the most controversial members of Congress. They questioned why Scheller has been prosecuted for his actions when senior U.S. officials such as President Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not. I had always thought that witnesses (or the accused) could not impeach the verdict? And, see LTC (R) B. D. Bigler, A New Paradigm for Plea Agreements Under the 2016 MJA. ARMY LAWYER, No. 6, 2019 at 48. UPDATE: One month forfeiture of $5,000 in pay and a letter of reprimand. "Marine Corps Judge Col. Glen Hines said he was considering giving Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller two months of docked pay but decided to limit it to one month because Scheller spent nine days in pre-trial confinement, known as the brig, at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina." Human Trafficking. For those who have been, or might be, involved in such cases, here is a good overview of applicable federal statutes. Unless Congress were to do away with Article 134(3), UCMJ, these are potential assimilated crimes. Cheers, Phil Cave
Brenner M. Fissell
10/15/2021 09:59:13 am
Gohmert and Taylor-Greene? How embarrassing. Let this be a reminder of how politicized mj cases can be--and that therefore, despite the Bergdahl prosecutors' claims, *political* UCI can be very real.
Anon
10/15/2021 12:20:31 pm
I have always wondered why accused waive appellate review? Is it in the hopes of avoiding having online material about their crimes published? With the new releases of most ROTs that doesn’t seem to matter. Is it the “I just want to move on, get the DD 214 and go.” Most cases are merit appeals so not sure what the harm is in letting the system play out. Any anecdotal experience as to why this occurs?
Concerned Citizen
10/15/2021 01:42:35 pm
Just wanting it to be done. That or not wanting to go back to the military environment and get re-tried; while they couldn't get an increased sentence generally, there are plenty of times other things that they could get tacked on to increase their sentence on a re-trial.
Nathan Freeburg
10/15/2021 01:43:06 pm
Sometimes they need the DD214 for employment purposes. Comments are closed.
|
Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -Current Term Opinions ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA Joint R. App. Pro. Global MJ Reform LOC Mil. Law Army Lawyer Resources Categories
All
Archives
April 2022
|