Maybe I’m missing it, but I still can’t find the SG’s response opposing cert in Loving on the SG’s website.  We’ve posted a copy here.

The Supremes’ website confirms that the Office of the Solicitor General filed an opposition to the Loving cert petition on Friday.  Loving v. United States, No. 09-989.  But the brief in opposition isn’t yet up on the SG’s website.  I’ll post a link once it’s available.

When we last visited the habeas appeal of Hennis v. Hemlick, No. 10-6400, the Fourth Circuit denied a request to halt retired Army Master Sergeant Timothy Hennis’s capital court-martial pending its resolution of his appeal of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Caolina’s denial of his habeas petition.   Hennis v. Hemlick, No. 10-6400 (4th Cir. Apr. 1, 2010). The court-martial proceeded and Hennis was convicted and sentenced to death.

Now the Fourth Circuit has issued this briefing order, under which Hennis’s brief is due on 16 August and the government’s brief is due on 17 September.

The No Man wrote about a motions session in an Army capital case below.  Tomorrow a Marine, Pvt Jonathon Law, will be arraigned in a capital court-martial at Camp Lejeune.  Pvt Law’s defense counsel are LtCol John Baker — of United States v. Walker remand fame — and Maj Forrest Hoover.  Maj Joel Leggett is the lead TC.  The Circuit Military Judge, Col D. J. Daugherty, will be on the bench.

The Savannah Morning News reports here that Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich’s defense counsel, Charlie Gittins argued motions today asking for additional peremptory challenges to counter the imbalance that CA member selection puts on the process and for dismissal of the capital charges based on errors in the preferral/referral process.  The next hearing is scheduled for Jul. 8.  On the preferral/referral issue, the report states:

Attorneys for a 3rd Infantry Division soldier accused of shooting two non-commissioned officers while all three men were deployed to Iraq in 2008 are asking a military judge to drop capital charges in a pending court-martial.

They claim two aggravating circumstances surrounding the incident were not properly listed on the suspect’s initial charge sheet.

I can only speculate that the error is of a Ring v. Arizona -like dimension as was raised in US v. Wade Walker(Issue XXXIX).  Knowing the guy who drafted that issue, I hope Mr. Gittins or other observers would forward any briefs or decisions on the issue to me at noman@caaflog.com so that I can send it along to him.

At today’s Article 32 investigation in the case of Major Nidal Hasan, the investigating officer — Colonel James Pohl — granted a defense request to delay the investigation until 4 October, though a procedural session will be held in the interim on 19 July.  Here, via  the Army Times‘ web site, is an AP report on today’s proceedings.

USA Today reports that “Hasan, who is paralyzed from the chest down after being shot by police at the scene of the shooting spree, sat in a wheelchair.”

Yesterday, Army SGT James T. Murphy was resentenced to life with eligibility for parole, a DD, reduction to E-1, and total forfeiture of pay and allowances.  The sentence was adjudged under a pretrial agreement providing for a non-capital referral.  Because SGT Murphy’s death-eligible offenses (three premeditated murders) were committed before the statute establishing LWOP took effect, the sentence he received was the maximum that could be imposed by a non-captial court-martial.

Murphy is one of eight cases tried under the current post-1983 military death penalty system in which the death sentence was set aside on appeal.  In seven of those eight cases, the original death sentence was replaced by confinement for life.  The eighth case, Quintanilla, remains pending at the trial level.

KXXV reports here that “Fort Hood officials say there has been no decision to pursue the death penalty of Maj. Nidal Hasan, despite recent reports.”  We previously noted one such report here.  (We also noted that report was highly inaccurate in other respects.)

Phil Cave’s Court-Martial Trial Practice blog provides this link to the text of a press release Fort Hood issued emphasizing that no decision on whether to refer the Hasan case capitally has yet been made.

According to this Stars & Stripes report, “Army prosecutors have sent a notice that they plan to seek the death penalty against Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of the Fort Hood shootings, according to Hasan’s attorney, John Galligan.”

(One of our readers provides a link to the document that Mr. Galligan references, here.)

But here’s a warning:  much of the information in the article is just plain wrong.  Things start to go off track with this:  

The military last executed an inmate nearly 40 years ago.

The execution took place on April 13, 1961, when U.S. Army Pvt. John A. Bennett was hanged after being convicted of the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl.

Uhm, April 13, 1961 was more than 49 years ago, not “nearly 40 years ago.”  Things get worse after that, since at least that error is self-evident.  But I’m not going to squander my time cataloguing all of the errors in the article.  Bottom line:  don’t rely on the information in this article.  (That said, it’s a pretty good bet the government will seek death in the Hasan case.)

WCCO reports here that the military judge in the capital court-martial of Seregant Joseph Bozicevich has granted a defense request to continue the case from June until February 2011.  The case is being tried at Fort Stewart.  SGT Bozicevich is charged with killing two other U.S. soldiers in Iraq, including his squad leader.