The dinner is open to the public. No JAA or ANCC membership is required to attend. Click on the image to the right of visit www.jaa.org for further information.
The next meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will occur on April 10, 2015, in Courtroom 20, 6th floor, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001.
The focus of the meeting will be prevention and response to retaliation against victims of sexual assault crimes. Further details here.
You can watch the National Security Law Brief Spring Symposium live, at this link:
Reportedly, after the event is over, a recorded video will be available at the above link.
UPDATE–LIVEBLOG (No Man posting now)
I am here at the event and listening to a great presentation by Judge Baker. He is talking about the role of contractors and how to improve the US use of contractors in combat and related operations. He refers to the “accountability gap” a little differently then other commentators. He is talking about resources to investigate and preserve evidence as a part of the accountability regime and the difficulty in a deployed environment. The other issue he highlights is oversight and transparency and their role in policing the military contractor workforce.
The Judge Advocates Association American Inn of Court will hold an event at the George Washington University Law School Lerner Hall (Rm. LL102) on Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at 6:45 p.m, followed by a social event at Tonic, 2036 G Street NW, Washington, DC, at 7:45 p.m.
The event will include a presentation by Colonel Jay R. McKee, US Army Program Manager, Special Victim Counsel (SVC) Program, titled United States Army Special Victims’ Counsel Program: The Gold Standard for Representing Victims of Sexual Assault.
The event is open to the public but attendees are requested to RSVP to email@example.com before end of the day on Monday, March 23, 2015. More information is available by clicking on the flyer to the right.
Congress created the Code Committee in Article 146 (10 U.S.C. § 946) and mandated that it “shall meet at least annually and shall make an annual comprehensive survey of the operation of this chapter.” The committee consists of the judges of CAAF, each service JAG and the SJA to the CMC, and two members of the public appointed by SECDEF.
The Committee met on March 3, 2015, the meeting was open to the public, and I attended. Here is a summary of my notes (all commentary is mine and all statements are paraphrased).
Here is the FedReg announcement for the latest JPP meeting on Mar. 13, 2015 from 9 am to 5 pm. The focus of this meeting is to consider “compensation and restitution for victims of offenses under the UCMJ, and develop recommendations on expanding such compensation and restitution.” Though not stated in the summary, the agenda makes clear that the focus is on restitution and compensation for sexual assault victims. Below is the agenda (I am guessing somewhere in there OFL is speaking):
- 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Administrative Session (41 CFR 102-3.160, 3 not subject to notice & open meeting requirements)
- 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. DoD Overview of Compensation and Restitution (public meeting begins)
- Speakers: Department of Defense subject matter experts
- 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Economic Needs of Sexual Assault Victims and Barriers to Compensation
- Speakers: Law school professors with recent scholarship on restitution and compensation for victims of sexual assault crimes
- 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. State Compensation Programs: History, Purposes, and Use by Military/Dependent Victims
- Speakers: Representatives from national and state crime victim compensation associations
- 12:15 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch
- 1:00 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. How Victims Can Obtain Restitution or Compensation for Crimes Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
- Speakers: Military Services’ subject matter experts
- 2:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. Perspectives on Compensation and Restitution for Sexual Assault Victims
- Speakers: Civilian and military practitioners, representatives from victim advocacy organizations
- 4:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Public Comment
The 2015 meeting of the Code Committee will occur on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., at CAAF (notice here). As with the past two years (discussed here (2014) and here (2013)), I plan to attend and post notes.
CAAF’s annual Continuing Legal Education and Training Program is scheduled for May 19-20, 2015, at Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC (notice here). Last year’s program was fantastic.
Here is a link to a federal register notice of a meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel scheduled for November 14, 2014, at the Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
I inadvertently omitted an important military justice event from yesterday’s This Week in Military Justice post.
A public meeting of the Joint Service Committee will be held on Wednesday at CAAF, beginning at 10 a.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial (discussed here).
I’m planning to attend the meeting. I look forward to meeting any readers who might also be there.
The Military to Civilian Success for Legal Professionals Seminar (aka Jobs for JAGs) will be held Oct. 30, 2014 from 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m at the Crystal City Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA. The event is co-sponsored by the Military Officers Association of America and the Judge Advocates Association. Registration link here.
Today’s Federal Register contains this public notice, 79 Fed. Reg. 59,937 (Oct. 3, 2014), of proposed changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial. The notice also solicits public comments regarding the proposed changes (due no later than December 2, 2014), and provides notice of a public meeting about the proposed changes to occur on October 29, 2014, at CAAF.
The proposed changes consume 22 pages in the Federal Register (shorter than the 34 pages of changes proposed in 2012 and only partially adopted in 2013). The proposed changes mainly implement the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013 (I discussed these reforms in a series of posts available here).
While much of the proposed changes are unremarkable, there are some surprises. For example, R.C.M. 405 (addressing the Article 32 process) is revised in its entirety (because of the revised Article 32 effective in December). The revised R.C.M. 405(h) states that
the Military Rules of Evidence do not apply in preliminary hearings under this rule except as follows . . . Mil. R. Evid. 412 shall apply in any case that includes a charge defined as a sexual offense in Mil. R. Evid. 412(d), except that Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C) shall not apply. . . . [Mil. R. Evid.] 513(d)(8); and 514(d)(6) shall not apply.
79 Fed. Reg. at 59,941 (proposed R.C.M. 405(h)). These three Military Rules of Evidence that do not apply (412(b)(1)(c), 513(d)(8), and 514(d)(6)) are the constitutional exceptions to the general rules prohibiting admission of an alleged victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition (M.R.E. 412), establishing the psychotherapist-patient privilege (M.R.E. 513), and establishing the victim advocate privilege (M.R.E. 514).
The proposed changes emphasize that M.R.E. 412, 513, and 514 apply as exclusionary rules only, stating that the hearing officer “shall assume the military judge’s authority to exclude evidence from the preliminary hearing.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 59,941 (proposed R.C.M. 405(h)(4)) (emphasis added). Further, a new discussion section explains:
Although Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C) allows admission of evidence of the victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition at trial when it is constitutionally required, there is no constitutional requirement at an Article 32 hearing. There is likewise no constitutional requirement for a pretrial hearing officer to consider evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 513(d)(8), and 514(d)(6) at an Article 32 hearing.
79 Fed. Reg. at 59,950.
The proposal also provides a new definition of the term “matters in mitigation” for the purpose of an Article 32 preliminary hearing:
For the purposes of this rule, “matters in mitigation” are defined as matters that may serve to explain the circumstances surrounding a charged offense.
79 Fed. Reg. at 59,941. The changes do not modify the definition of “matter in mitigation” found in R.C.M. 1001(c)(1)(B).
Other interesting proposed changes include:
This public notice set for publication tomorrow in the Federal Register announces that a meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) (creation discussed here) will be held on Thursday, August 7, 2014, at The George Washington University Law School, Faculty Conference Center, 5th Floor, 716 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20052. The Public Session will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. The agenda is:
- 8:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m.Administrative Session (41 CFR § 160(b), closed to the public)
- 10:00 a.m.-10:10 a.m.Comments from the Panel Chair
- 10:10 a.m.-11:00 a.m.Military Justice Discussion and Legislation Update
- 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.Discussion of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel Report
- 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.Lunch
- 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.Rape and Sexual Assault Laws in the United States
- 2:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m.Evolution of Article 120 of the UCMJ
- 4:00 p.m.-4:45 p.m.Panel Deliberations
- 4:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m.Public Comment
The notice also states that the panel’s website is http://jpp.whs.mil/ but it looks like the site isn’t live.
I’ve just returned to North Carolina after the CAAF CLE and while I’ll likely post some thoughts about the substance of the program in the next few days, I want to immediately convey my gratitude to the judges, the court staff, and the participants who made that incredible program happen. Thank you.
The conference is taking shape.
Here is a link to the presenters.
Some interesting and relevant topics.
I’m particularly pleased to see Prof. Witt on the panel, I have recommend his book, “Lincoln’s Code,” previously as worth the read. Prof. Bibas might also be good if he discusses Brady issues and other contributions to wrongful convictions, see an earlier post.