Phil “My Liege” Cave informs me that a post-trial Article 39(a) session has been scheduled in the Hennis case at Fort Leavenworth on 21 January 2011.  Word is that the hearing will focus on problems recently revealed concerning the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation lab and whether the government failed to reveal the results of certain tests to the defense.

11 Responses to “Hennis post-trial Article 39(a) session scheduled”

  1. Michael Lowrey says:

    For those interested in learning more about the SBI crime lab’s problems, probably the best place to start is here:

  2. Objection says:

    Does this mean that Judge Parish is not apart of this hearing?


  3. Dew_Process says:

    Probably not – most Art. 39(a) sessions that occur post-trial, especially those limited to “legal” questions, where the Accused is at the DB, take place there due to alleged “security” concerns, so the rest of the participants schlepp to the DB. Unless he’s retired (again) COL Parrish is still the MJ.

  4. John Harwood says:

    Does anyone know if Mr. Frank Spinner is still representing Hennis?

  5. Objection says:

    I’m fairly certain that Frank Spinner is still representing Hennis. Why?

  6. Dew_Process says:

    As of aboutr 4 weeks ago, Frank had not been retained for any post-trial work. But, that was before the current motions were filed. Objection’s finger is closer to the pulse of this case than mine, so in light of the issues, he very well could be part of the litigation over these motions.

  7. Objection says:


    You’re correct. Mr. Spinner did not just drop this case after the guilty verdict. He may be doing it pro bono or as part of the original defense fee he was paid.

  8. John Harwood says:

    Just curious. I’ve done a few cases both with and against Frank and know this case took a toll on him.

  9. Dew_Process says:

    Any death penalty case takes a toll on you if you’re defending. More so when you lose!

  10. Common Sense says:

    Well lets see here the Army has 94% Conviction Rate on winning Court Martial’s. So with only a 6 % chance of winning. I say his Attorney’s did a great job. And looks as if they have there Client in A good position at this stage. The Article 39 (a) is a great start. But before they render a decision, I think we will hear from the 4th Circuit Court. Did they have jurisdiction? If anyone has been reading,it appears he was called up for National Defense as A retire. I know, I know retirees can be called up, but solely for UCMJ? I’ve read alot of MCM Manuals and UCMJ but still have never read A Retire can be called up just for UCMJ.

  11. Objection says:

    Common Sense:


    I think you have it in reverse. Mr. Hennis was called out of retirement for UCMJ and not for National Defense. I think you meant that the Manual says that one can only be called out of retirement for National Defense.