Here (NY Daily News) and here NY Times) is a sampling of coverage of various defense motions and a court-martial dismissal based on the President’s comments about sexual assault in the military.

AP (via YahooNews) here on the military’s efforts to get serious with the sexual assault issue.

And here (subscription required) is the editorial from Marine Corps Capt. Lindsay Rodman on why she thinks the military sexual assault issue has been over-blown.

From the Weekly Standard, here, Hays Parks and others bemoan political influence and delay in releasing the law of war manual.

6 Responses to “Military Justice News for Monday, July 15, 2012”

  1. Babu says:

    Regarding UCI from the President’s comments: from CAAF’s Hutchins decision, given CJ Baker’s dissent, it can fairly be assumed that of the 5 Judges, he would be the most deferential to civilian leadership’s statements about military justice.  But even with his deferential approach, he still acknolwedged that statements from the civilian chain of command should be analyzed under the framework of “unlawful command influence.” 
     
    So for the President’s comments and for going forward for other statements by the civilian chain, military judges should continue to apply a UCI analysis, which means that the defense only needs to offer “some evidence” and then the burden shifts to the Government to harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.  As CJ Baker noted in his dissent, this is in accordance with CAAF’s prior case law.  On appeal then, an MJ’s remedies for identified UCI would be reviewed for abuse of discretion.    

  2. stewie says:

    While I disagree, assuming the President’s comments truly do mean that no one can get a fair trial and thus all trials should either be dismissed or there should be no discharges granted…what do folks who agree with this think the President can do to “fix” the problem?

  3. Dyskolos says:

    Well, stewie, in the ordinary course of business at a military installation the JAG writes a cure memorandum for the commander that says, “What I meant to say at stand up the other day was….”  That, or something similar, may be what has to happen here.

  4. Cap'n Crunch says:

    Brown just got decided.  No abuse of discretion to allow a victim advocate to accompany a witness to the stand where they tried allowing a witness to testify without the advocate and she couldnt, the mj instructed the panel to ignore the advocate, and the advocate did not say anything.  Caaf notes standard is abuse of discretion, which is even more deferential when balancing is done on the record as was done in this case.

  5. Grey says:

    A non-subscription version of Capt Rodman’s article in the WSJ can also be found by clicking the hyperlink “Read Full Article” at the site below:
     
    http://www.realcleardefense.com/2013/05/20/the_pentagon039s_bad_math_on_sexual_assault_253673.html

  6. k fischer says:

    Dyskolos,
    I could be wrong, and should assume I am for speaking for Stewie, but I think that Stewie’s question was directed at what the CiC could do to fix the sexual assault problem, not fix the UCI issue……
     
    To answer that question as it pertains to sexual assault, that’s a good question.  I don’t know what he can say to try to fix it, but I do know that what he said.  I think what the CiC can do is to stay the course with the changes that were implemented by the Army in 2009, make them available across all the branches, and make sure that prosecutors have the resources they need to prosecute sex crimes.  While I still think that is stacking the deck, I don’t think that it is unlawful.