AF Times, here, and the San Antonio Express News, here, report that the military judge in the latest Lackland military training instructor case has suppressed key evidence in the case due to an illegal search. The report says that the government retrieved text messages from TSGT Samuel Wicks mobile phone without a warrant after his ex-girlfriend stole the phone from his office. No word yet on an Art. 62 appeal or the viability of the charges which include inappropriate but non-sexual (at least that’s how I am reading it) relationships with three recruits and an unspecified indecent act. [Update] Am I reading the SN-E story correctly that Judge Ellers dismissed all the charges?  Anyone on the ground at Lackland able to say what the ruling actually was . . . or even provide us a copy?

Sentencing for one of the Canadian officers involved in the training range death im Afghanistan resulted in no jail time. The officer, a Major, was demoted and given a “severe” reprimand. CBC report here. Sentencing in the case of the retired warrant officer recalled to face manslaughter charges is next month.

An Art. 39a session will be held today in the BGEN Sinclair case at Ft. Bragg. The Fayetteville Observere reports, here, that the military judge could rule of the trial counsel disqualification issue today. Trial is set to begin May 13th with a current witness list that looks more like an Army GO directory–including the Army Chief of Staff.

5 Responses to “Military Justice News for Feb. 21, 2013”

  1. SFC V says:

    Getting a panel together for BG Sinclair ought to be fun.  The GO world is very small.

  2. Phil Cave says:

    “V”  I’m not sure they’ll have to have all GO’s.
    Look at the discussion to RCM 503.
    Although I would agree they should not be able to say there aren’t enough GO’s in the Army.

  3. Bill C says:

    Retiree recall. They did that in the CSM McKinney case if I recall. And they can use GO’s from other services.

  4. SFC V says:

    They could also use reserve GOs.  As long as they put them in an active duty status during the trial.  In order to avoid all GOs the government will probably have to show that they made a substantial effort between AC, RC, and retirees.
    I’m sure that there are a few people hard at work getting this together.

  5. Phil Cave says:

    I suppose a way to get Sr. COL’s would be to find those with a lineal number / DOR “senior” to where S would be on the list if still a COL?  Which if nothing else it’s quite likely he’ll be when he retires.