https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/32/1/mata-v-avianca-inc/ is the link to the affidavits in which the counsel admits to using ChatGPT for case research. Some of us have tinkered with ChatGPT for briefs---um, not a good idea? A query "Solorio v. United States," drew this answer: I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any specific information about a legal case titled "Solorio v. United States" that occurred before my knowledge cutoff in September 2021. It's possible that this case may have emerged after that time or might not be widely known. Additionally, please note that as an AI language model, I don't have real-time access to the internet or the ability to browse current legal cases. If "Solorio v. United States" is a recent or ongoing case, I recommend consulting reliable legal sources or news outlets for the most up-to-date information. United States v. FiguereoFiguereo presents a case where the court found a valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest created by the lead military defense counsel. The court did, however, limit the IAC to the sentencing case. The court also set-aside an enlisted panel's findings of another offense. In reassessment the court set-aside 10 months of confinement (which the appellant had already served by then) and left in place three months of confinement. a total of 13 months’ confinement, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge. The confinement portion of the sentence was segmented. Ten months of the confinement sentence was attributed to the specification of abusive sexual contact, Article 120, UCMJ, and was to run consecutively with the rest of the confinement term (three months) attributed to the other charges and their specifications. For the charges and their specifications to which the Appellant pleaded guilty, the military judge imposed between two and three months’ confinement all to run concurrently with each other. The facts surrounding the IAC are not pretty, and you should read them for yourself. When done, consider (1) what can and cannot be said to a defense witness about contacting an alleged victim of a sexual assault after that victim has testified, and (2) should you get that wrong how should you go about explaining your actions when they are brought up when trial counsel brings them up as creating a conflict of interest. And in the process avoid getting your name in the court's opinion. United States v. LondonIn London, the members convicted the appellant of involuntary manslaughter. The NMCCA finds the conviction factually insufficient. Appellant argues that the Government failed to prove that he punched Mr. Hotel, that the testimony and forensic evidence failed to prove that Mr. Hotel was punched, and that the forensic evidence showed that Mr. Hotel’s injury was consistent with falling backwards from pulling on Appellant’s sweatshirt rather than being punched. The case for and against London heavily depended on forensic evidence--pathology and toxicology. There were eyewitnesses, but none could testify to crucial facts against the appellant--none saw appellant punch the victim. Essentially the government was arguing that Appellant did punch the victim which caused the victim to have an "accelerated fall," which caused a skull fracture and, ultimately death. Essentially the defense argued that the victim was pulling on Appellant's sweatshirt so strongly that it caused indicia of strangulation and was so hard it ripped the sweatshirt, and then when the sweatshirt ripped the intoxicated victim fell and struck his head.
The link to the Navy military justice and NMCCA opinions has been updated. The listing of publicly available cases seems to be a work in progress (hopefully the search function will be fixed).The National Institute of Military Justice is pleased to announce the winner of the 2022 Kevin J. Barry Award.
This award is intended to recognize substantial scholarship from the previous year, and will be evaluated for “excellence in military legal studies,” with the winner selected by a committee of law professors and practitioners. The winner is: Professor Saira Mohamed (Berkeley), for her article entitled Abuse by Authority: The Hidden Harm of Illegal Orders. 107 Iowa L. Rev. 2183 (2022). Prof. Mohamed's piece "argues that international and domestic law should acknowledge [a] superior's order not only as a link to the crimes of the subordinate, but also as an abuse of the superior's relationship of authority over the subordinate." Given that one of the most distinctive features of military criminal law is its recognition of a limited superior orders defense, this new theoretical framing of unlawful orders makes an important contribution to our field. New Article on Fort Hood Report![]()
The new Article 140a requires periodic reports to Congress about the Services' case management systems. NIMJ recently obtained these reports via FOIA. More analysis to follow. ![]()
United States v. KimKim is a guilty plea case with an issue as to the providence of one specification. The CAAF affirms the findings of three specifications of sexual abuse of a child and one assault and battery. The military judge had sentenced the Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, 130 months of confinement, and reduction to grade E-1. The CA abided by the PTA to reduce the confinement to six years. The CAAF sets aside an Article 134(2) specification that alleged: that Appellant “did . . . commit indecent conduct, to wit: conducting an internet search for ‘rape sleep’ and ‘drugged sleep,’ and that said conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” CAAF tells us that:
No. 23-0126/NA. U.S. v. Rill A. Thompson. CCA 202100205. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the general court-martial adjudged a sentence consisting of confinement for 21 years and a dishonorable discharge and that the convening authority approved that sentence.
However, the lower court first stated the following: "Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 21 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge," and then later affirmed the sentence. United States v. Thompson, No. 202100205, slip op. at 1 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 18, 2023). Actually, the Entry of Judgment stated that "[t]he Convening Authority approved the sentence of 21 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge." Rill A. Thompson Entry of Judgment of July 16, 2021 at 2. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following specified issue: WHETHER THE UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY PURPORTING TO AFFIRM A "REDUCTION TO E-1" AND "FORFEITURE OF ALL PAY AND ALLOWANCES" WHERE NO SUCH PUNISHMENTS WERE ADJUDGED AT THE COURT-MARTIAL. The decision of the lower court is affirmed as to findings and to only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for 21 years and a dishonorable discharge. |
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
|