In this post I noted news reporting about a military legal ethics inquiry connected to the ongoing case of Marine Major Mark Thompson (CAAFlog news page), our #7 Military Justice Story of 2016. Such ethics inquiries are notoriously opaque.

That inquiry is now over. Stars and Stripes reports here that:

The ethics probe into Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Cmdr. Aaron Rugh was closed after the investigation “found that the available evidence failed to support a violation” of the Rules of Professional Responsibility governing Navy lawyers, according to a memo signed by Vice Adm. J.W. Crawford III, the Navy Judge Advocate.

“Accordingly, no further inquiry will be conducted and the matter is now closed,” said the brief memo dated Monday and received Tuesday by Stars and Stripes.

The Washington Post’s Jonathan Woodrow Cox – whose reporting led to this prosecution of Major Thompson – also writes about the end of the inquiry here.

5 Responses to “A glimpse of the end of a military legal ethics inquiry”

  1. Burt Macklin says:

    “He recalled and still recalls today that this information was relayed to him by a member of the prosecution,”
    Throwing the junior TC under the bus.  Stay classy San Diego.  

  2. Alfonso Decimo says:

    Burt, the junior TC denied telling him those facts. If he/she did, in fact, tell him those facts, what’s he supposed to do? It all depends on who you believe, Burt. Those of us who know Aaron well are strongly inclined to believe him.

  3. A Random Jag says:

    Of course, an equally unpleasant option is that they WERE interviewed and the family was either lying/did not remember the interview.  Granted, a less likely scenario, but a possibility nonetheless.

  4. stewie says:

    Someone is lying. Guess we’ll never know who.

  5. Andy Pollock says:

    The complaint could still be made to his state bar.  They are not bound by the Navy’s decision.
    Andy P