United States v. Humpel.
A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, in accordance with his pleas pursuant to a pretrial agreement (PTA), of using drugs. Sentence: Big Chicken Dinner, 2 months, and two sides.
United States v. Huff. Appellant was sentenced to a Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 24 months for two specifications of possessing CP. Appellant is a winner on his fourth assignment of error.
On appeal, Appellant raises four assignments of error: (1) whether the military judge erred by admitting a certain exhibit over defense objection; (2) whether certain language should be excepted from two specifications; (3) whether the entry of judgment should be corrected to reflect that Charge I and its specification were dismissed “with prejudice;” and (4) whether the convening authority erred by not taking action on Appellant’s sentence as required by Executive Order 13,825, § 6(b), 83 Fed. Reg. 9889, 9890 (8 Mar. 2018), and Article 60, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860.
And AFCCA laps Navy, see below.
United States v. Gradiz. The court enters the race with a no issues submission but after close review the case is remanded for an ambiguity in the post-trial. Appellant received a BCD and 18 months for wilful disobedience and two specifications of “intimate partner” assault.
United States v. Christopher.
This is not the first time Petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus claiming lack of personal jurisdiction. Nearly six years ago, this Court denied a similar request, ruling that, even assuming Petitioner was properly retired at the time of trial, “Article 2(a)(4), UCMJ, confers in personam jurisdiction over retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.”1 Petitioner was subsequently convicted of three specifications of assault consummated by a battery upon a child and one specification of indecent acts with a child,2 with an approved sentence of two year’s confinement and reduction to pay grade E-1.
WORTH THE READ
Professor Katie Kronick (American University Washington College of Law) has posted "Forensic Science and the Judicial Conformity Problem" (Seton Hall Law Review, forthcoming) on SSRN.
There is a somewhat old article by Prof. Risinger that may interest you after reading the Kronick piece. Navigating Expert Reliability: Are Criminal Standards of Certainty Being Left on the Dock, 64 Albany L. Rev. 99 (2000). Prof. Risinger at one point writes,
The system shipwreck I fear is that in ten years we will find that civil cases are subject to strict standards of expertise quality control, while criminal cases are not. The result would be that the pocketbooks of civil defendants would be pr otected from plaintiffs' claims by exclusion of undependable expert testimony, but that criminal defendants would not be protected from conviction based on similarly undependable expert testimony. Such a result would seem particularly unacceptable given the law's claim that inaccurate criminal convictions are substantially worse than inaccurate civil judgments, reflected in the different applicable standards of proof.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Global MJ Reform
LOC Mil. Law