Denial of Request to Tape Record Article 32 Proceeding is Not a Violation of Confrontation Rights Historical case discussion: The decisions below concern the former Article 32 investigation procedure. Current Article 32 provides for a preliminary hearing and requires it to be recorded. A victim may decline to testify; the defense may cross-examine witnesses who […]
Request to Tape Record the Article 32 Proceedings Historical case discussion: The decisions below concern the former Article 32 investigation procedure. Current Article 32 provides for a preliminary hearing and requires it to be recorded. A victim may decline to testify; the defense may cross-examine witnesses who testify. The earlier recording rulings should not be […]
Witness Availability & Alternatives to Live Testimony Historical case discussion: This account concerns the former Article 32 investigation procedure and a 2010 decision. Current Article 32 governs a preliminary hearing, requires recording of the hearing and permits a victim to decline to testify. The older R.C.M. 405 provision quoted below should not be used as […]
Article 32 Recordings – Confrontation Clause/Due Process Historical case discussion: The decisions below concern the former Article 32 investigation procedure. Current Article 32 provides for a preliminary hearing and requires it to be recorded. A victim may decline to testify; the defense may cross-examine witnesses who testify. The earlier recording rulings should not be read […]
Article 32 Hearing Historical case discussion: The decisions below concern the former Article 32 investigation procedure. Current Article 32 provides for a preliminary hearing and requires it to be recorded. A victim may decline to testify; the defense may cross-examine witnesses who testify. The earlier recording rulings should not be read as the procedure for […]
United States v. Hudson, No. 37249 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 23, 2010) (unpublished) deals with the issue of a member having contact during trial with the SJA. Following voir dire and challenges but before opening statements, the military judge advised the panel members to avoid the appearance of improper conduct and that the members […]
In United States v. Bagstad, 68 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2010) the accused was tried at special court-martial by a threemember panel composed of one Marine captain (Capt O-3), one first sergeant (1stSgt E-8), and one gunnery sergeant (GySgt E-7). The Capt was the GySgt’s rater, so the rater and ratee could form the necessary two-thirds (⅔) to […]
Aug 5, 2011 In United States v. Gabriel, NMCCA 200900429, 2010 WL 380994 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2010) the accused was convicted of rape, battery, and indecent exposure in contested case before an enlisted panel. On appeal, accused argued his defense counsel was ineffective for not using a peremptory challenge against a Master Sergeant (MSgt) whose […]
Under R.C.M. 912(f)(4), if “objectionable” member does not sit on the panel (for example, if defense counsel uses preemptory challenge to excuse the member), the appellate court will not review the military judge’s denial of a challenge for cause for that member. The causal challenge is also waived on appeal if the party exercising the challenge does […]