Air Force seeks its pound of flesh in Teixeira leaks case
"If 16 years in prison isn’t sufficient deterrence against trying to impress one’s video gamer friends with highly classified intelligence snagged from one’s Air Force worksite, what is? The U.S. Air Force doesn’t think it’s enough. In an almost unheard of move, the Air Force recently decided to pursue court-martial charges against Massachusetts Air National Guard Airman First Class Jack Teixeira — after Teixeira pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court for his leaks, and after he’d agreed to a 16-year prison term for his felonious retention and transmission of classified material. " Read more here.
5 Comments
Wednesday, May 15, 2024 Certificate for Review Filed No. 24-0156/AR. U.S. v. Ross E. Downum. CCA 20220575. I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN CONDUCTING ITS LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS WHEN IT HELD THAT UNITED STATES V. CAMPBELL, 50 M.J. 154, 160 (C.A.A.F. 1999) REQUIRES NOT ONLY EXPERT TESTIMONY INTERPRETING URINALYSIS RESULTS BUT THE ADMISSION OF THE UNDERLYING PAPER URINALYSIS RESULTS AS WELL. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT UNOBJECTED TO EXPERT TESTIMONY INTERPRETING THE URINALYSIS RESULTS LACKED RELEVANCE WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF THE PAPER URINALYSIS RESULTS. III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B). ACCA Filings. This is the proverbial "paper" urinalysis case, but without the paper. Writes Judge Penland and goes on to find legal insufficiency. the government asked its expert, "[W]hat is GC-MS?" The expert answered, "Gas chromatography mass spectrometry....[i]t is the confirmation, the one that looks for the fingerprint of the drug." Beyond this metaphor the expert offered virtually no information about the test itself, whether it is regarded as scientifically sound, and whether it was conducted in accordance with prescribed procedures in this case.2 The expert did testify the metabolite from the sample exceeded the cutoff level and did not occur naturally in the body, but there was no explanation of the cutoff level's relevance, or any other evidence indicating test controls for the possibility of innocent ingestion. United States v. PettryAnother stern warning. Sentenced on 2 August 2022, entry of judgment on 27 Sep 2022. The trial counsel completed the precertification review on 3 Apr 2023. Military judge's authentication on 11 Apr 2023. The government then forwarded the record to the court without any explanation for the post-trial processing delay. The record was docketed at this court on 28 April 2023, 269 days after adjournment and 213 days after the entry of judgment. The government obtained and requested to attach a post-trial delay memo dated 24 October 2023, but that motion was denied. Visiting each basis for granting relief for post-trial delay, ACCA finds no Due Process violation. But visits Article 66(d)(2). In determining whether relief is appropriate, this court considers the totality of the circumstances "balancing the interplay between factors such as chronology, complexity, and unavailability, as well as the unit's memorialized justifications for any delay." See United States v. Winfield, 83 M.J. 662, 666 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2023). United States v. Avellaneda, |
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
Co-editors:
Phil Cave Brenner Fissell Links
SCOTUS CAAF -Daily Journal -2024 Ops ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA JRAP JRTP UCMJ Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.) Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.) Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.) MCM 2024 MCM 2023 MCM 2019 MCM 2016 MCM 2012 MCM 1995 UMCJ History Global Reform Army Lawyer JAG Reporter Army Crim. L. Deskbook J. App. Prac. & Pro. CAAFlog 1.0 CAAFlog 2.0 Archives
July 2024
Categories
All
|