The third issue of Volume 40 of the Air Force JAG School’s legal magazine The Reporter is available here (link fixed), and it contains some interesting military justice articles.

Two articles discuss the Special Victim’s Counsel program. First, Captain Richard A. Hanrahan, USAF, writes Through Her Eyes: The Lessons Learned as a Special Victim’s Counsel. Next, Major Christopher J. Goewert and Captain Seth W. Dilworth, USAF, discuss The Scope of a Victim’s Right to be Heard Through Counsel, concluding:

Practically speaking, a victim’s counsel is not asking for a third table at the hearing.

and:

It is patently unreasonable for the government to provide a victim’s attorney with no evidence, as the victim would then be represented by counsel that has been rendered ineffective. It is equally unnecessary for victims’ counsel to receive all the evidence in a given case as they are not a party entitled to discovery.

Two articles discuss professional responsibility: Technical Sergeant Michael N. Barker Jr., USAF, reviews Professional Responsibility for Paralegals, and Lieutenant Colonel Thomas W. Murrey Jr., USAF, considers Air Force Rule of Professional Responsibility 8.3: The Duty to Report the Misconduct of Others and the Consequences of Failing to Do So.

Major Sam C. Kidd, USAF, provides an after-action type review of his encounters with the Stored Communications Act as a trial counsel, in Military Courts Declared Incompetent: What Practitioners (Including Defense Counsel) Need to Know about the Stored Communications Act.

And Mr. Thomas G. Becker, DAF, provides a biographical sketch of “the only judge advocate to attain the grade of four-star general” in Four-Star Lawyer: The Journey of General Russell E. Dougherty.

4 Responses to “Military justice articles in part 3 of volume 40 of The Reporter”

  1. k fischer says:

    Those two SVC articles were pretty well written.  The first one on page 23 is from an SVC, which talks about what sounds a lot like that AF case where the trainee flew back to San Antonio twice after she says she says she was raped and didn’t report the rape because she didn’t want to lose face based on her culture, which was Vietnamese.  I made a few snarky comments about that case on this blog at some point, which the article made me reconsider.  

  2. Smith says:

    In the narrative provided by Capt Hanrahan he states he was the victim’s only confidant.  Doesn’t the Air Force have a SARC system in place?  It sounds like all he did was act as a SARC.  He comforted her, connected her with support groups, and ran interference to make sure she didn’t come into contact with other witnesses.  The only thing action taken that had a legal spin was asserting 412, but I imagine the TC would have made that objection anyway.
    To me the article came off as self agrandizing in order to support SVC funding for something that is already accomplished through the SAPR/SARC system. 

  3. Zachary D Spilman says:

    To me the article came off as self aggrandizing in order to support SVC funding for something that is already accomplished through the SAPR/SARC system.

    If we had a well-functioning SAPR/SARC system – or better yet, well-functioning trial counsel – we wouldn’t have the SVC. It’s not like this is a new problem. Remember the Velasquez mess?

    I made a few snarky comments about that case on this blog at some point, which the article made me reconsider. 

    Yeah. I hate it when that happens…

  4. stewie says:

    I think we would have SVCs with a “well-functioning trial counsel” because the roles are different.