Single mom faces court-martial, discharge for refusing to go to Afghanistan

SAVANNAH, Ga. — The Army said Wednesday that it has filed criminal charges against a single-mom soldier who refused to deploy to Afghanistan last year. She had argued that she had no family able to care for her infant son. Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, a 21-year-old Army cook, could face a prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge if she is convicted by a court-martial. An officer will be appointed to decide whether there is enough evidence to try a case against her. Hutchinson’s attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said she still hopes that the case can be settled without a military trial. She said the Army should consider Hutchinson’s reason for not deploying. Hutchinson, of Oakland, Calif., was scheduled to deploy Nov. 5 from Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah. She skipped her unit’s flight, saying the only relative she had to care for her 10-month-old son backed out a few days before Hutchinson’s departure date. — The Associated Press

—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

Civilian counsel court martial lawyer

UCMJ
Section 863. Art. 63. Rehearings
Each rehearing under this chapter shall take place before a
court-martial composed of members not members of the courtmartial
which first heard the case. Upon a rehearing the accused
may not be tried for any offense of which he was found not guilty
by the first court-martial, and no sentence in excess of or more
severe than the original sentence may be approved, unless the
sentence is based upon a finding of guilty of an offense not
considered upon the merits in the original proceedings, or unless
the sentence prescribed for the offense is mandatory. If the sentence
approved after the first court-martial was in accordance with a pretrial agreement and the accused at the hearing changes his plea with respect to the charges or specifications
upon which the pretrial agreement was based, or otherwise does
not comply with the pretrial agreement, the approved sentence as
to those charges or specifications may include any punishment
not in excess of that lawfully adjudged at the first court-martial.

—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

Court martial rules – military defense lawyer

Section 861. UCMJ Art. 61. Waiver or withdrawal of appeal
(a) In each case subject to appellate review under section 866 or
869(a) of this title (article 66 or 69(a)), except a case in which the
sentence as approved under section 860(c) of this title (article
60(c)) includes death, the accused may file with the convening
authority a statement expressly waiving the right of the accused to
such review. Such a waiver shall be signed by both the accused
and by defense counsel and must be filed within 10 days after the
action under section 860(c) of this title (article 60(c)) is served on
the accused or on defense counsel. The convening authority or
other person taking such action, for good cause, may extend the
period for such filing by not more than 30 days.
(b) Except in a case in which the sentence as approved under
section 860(c) of this title (article 60(c)) includes death, the accused
may withdraw an appeal at any time.
(c) A waiver of the right to appellate review or the withdrawal of
an appeal under this section bars review under section 866 or
869(a) of this title (article 66 or 69(a)).—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

San Diego Court Martial Attorney – Civilan Criminal Lawyer

Appendix 21 Rule for court martial 201

CHAPTER II. JURISDICTION
Rule 201 Jurisdiction in general
Introduction. The primary source of court-martial jurisdiction is
Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 14 of the Constitution, which empowers Congress
to make rules for the government and regulation of the
armed forces of the United States. Courts-martial are recognized
in the provisions of the fifth amendment expressly exempting
“cases arising in the land or naval forces” from the requirement
of presentment and indictment by grand jury. See also Part I,
Preamble, for a fuller discussion of the nature of courts-martial
and the sources of their jurisdiction.
(a) Nature of court-martial jurisdiction. Subsection (1) reiterates
the first sentence of the second paragraph of paragraph 8 of
MCM, 1969 (Rev.).

Courts-martial generally have the power to resolve
issues which arise in connection with litigating criminal liability
and punishment for offenses, to the extent that such resolution is
necessary to a disposition of the issue of criminal liability or
punishment.
Subsection (2) restates the worldwide extent of court-martial
jurisdiction. Article 5. See Autry v. Hyde, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 433, 42
C.M.R. 35 (1970). The discussion points out that, despite the
worldwide applicability of the code, geolineartal considerations
may affect court-martial jurisdiction. See R.C.M. 202 and 203.—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

Court martial sexual offense lawyer – Court martial law for sex crimes in the military

Presidential Documents
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 190 /Tuesday, October 2, 2007 / Presidential Documents 56179
Executive Order 13447 of September 28, 2007
Further 2007 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including chapter 47 of title 10,
United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 801–946),
and in order to prescribe amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States, prescribed by Executive Order 12473, as amended, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. The second subparagraph of paragraph 4, of Part I, of the Manual
for Courts-Martial, United States, as amended by section 2 of Executive
Order 13262 of April 11, 2002, is amended by striking the third sentence.
Sec. 2. Parts II, III, and IV of the Manual for Courts- Martial, United States,
are amended as described in the Annex attached and made a part of this
order.
Sec. 3. These amendments shall take effect on October 1, 2007.
(a) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to make punishable
any act done or omitted prior to October 1, 2007, that was not punishable
when done or omitted.
(b) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial
punishment proceedings, restraint, investigation, referral of charges,
trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to October
1, 2007, and any such nonjudicial punishment, restraint, investigation, referral
of charges, trial, or other action may proceed in the same manner and
with the same effect as if these amendments had not been prescribed.—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

Japan Court Martial Defense Lawyer

In a court martial, this is the proper procedure for pleading a non-capital fFederal crime under Article 134 clause 3 of the UCMJ

ARTICLE 134, CLAUSE 3
CHARGE: VIOLATION OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, ART.
134.
For Violation of U.S. Code:
Specification: In that SGT John Jones, U.S. Army, did, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a
military installation within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, between on or about 1 October 2004 and 30 November 2004, unlawfully bring
into the United States a firearm he obtained while deployed to Iraq during Operation Iraqi
Freedom, to wit: a folding-stock AK-47 assault rifle with bayonet, in violation of 26
U.S.C. 5844, [such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed
forces or being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces]*.
For State Law Assimilated by the ACA:

Specification: In that SPC Joseph Jones, U.S. Army, did, at Fort Hood, Texas, a military
installation within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, on
or about 4 February 2005, unlawfully enter a 1999 Chevrolet Silverado automobile, the
property of SSG John M. Smith, with intent to commit a criminal offense therein, to wit:
larceny of one automobile radio, in violation of Section 30.04 of the Texas Penal Code, and 18
U.S.C. Section 13, [such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed
forces or being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces]*.
*Language in brackets may—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

Fort Hood Court Martial: Defense lawyers raise insanity defense

Posted at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126291467396720881.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories
By BEN CASSELMAN of the Wall Street Journal

Defense attorneys for accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan are racing to collect evidence that could show their client is insane before a psychiatric evaluation is completed.

The Army on Wednesday evening told Maj. Hasan’s defense lawyers that it had convened a so-called sanity board to evaluate whether Maj. Hasan is fit to stand trial. The three-person panel is expected to make a recommendation by the end of February, a timeline that has defense attorneys frustrated.

Maj. Hasan is accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian in a Nov. 5 rampage at the Texas Army base. Prosecutors are expected to seek the death penalty.

Maj. Hasan’s mental status is shaping up to be a central issue in the case. John P. Galligan, the retired Army colonel leading the defense team, has said he was considering pursuing an insanity defense, and the Army has appointed a prosecutor with experience in such cases.

Legal experts said an insanity defense could be Mr. Galligan’s best chance of winning an acquittal for his client, or at least avoiding the death penalty. But it wouldn’t be easy. Defendants, both in civilian and military trials, rarely are found not guilty on the basis of their mental state. A 2006 study by three Army psychiatrists found that in the more than 21,000 courts-martial between 1990 and 2006, only six defendants were found not guilty by reason of insanity.

“It’s just a hard sell,” said Hugh Overholt, a North Carolina attorney specializing in defending military clients. “I’ve had a case where I was absolutely convinced the guy was nuts,” and still couldn’t win an acquittal, he said.

When Maj. Robert Martin, an Army attorney, got caught passing bad checks and defrauding his clients of about $100,000, the evidence against him was overwhelming. Mr. Martin’s lawyers argued that he was insane.

The attorneys brought in mental-health experts, including the chairman of Duke University’s Psychiatry Department, who diagnosed him with bipolar disorder. They dug up evidence of his erratic behavior, including a bizarre get-rich-quick scheme involving selling honey-baked hams in Mexico. They argued their client committed his crimes while in a manic state during which he didn’t know the difference between right and wrong.

The strategy didn’t work. Mr. Martin was convicted, kicked out of the Army and sentenced to two years’ confinement. “To this day I’m satisfied that all of his misconduct occurred during his manic states,” said Mark Waple, the lead defense attorney in the case. Mr. Martin couldn’t be reached for comment.

Defense attorneys faced a similar challenge in the case of Hasan Akbar, an Army sergeant accused of killing two U.S. soldiers in a grenade attack in the early days of the Iraq war. Sgt. Akbar’s lawyers argued he had a history of depression and was too mentally ill to be capable of premeditation.

In 2005, an Army jury found Sgt. Akbar guilty and sentenced him to death. The defense is appealing the verdict. Col. Michael Mulligan, the officer who prosecuted Sgt. Akbar, recently joined the team that will prosecute Maj. Hasan.

In the case of Maj. Hasan, former colleagues and others who knew him have said he acted oddly in the months leading up to the shootings. While posted at the Fort Hood Army base, he lived in a cramped one-bedroom apartment, a place far smaller than he could have afforded on his salary. In the days before the shootings, he gave away many of his belongings.

Mr. Galligan said he was looking into such reports for evidence that his client was mentally unstable. But he said he hasn’t yet been given access to reports or records from before the Nov. 5 shooting, and the Army’s investigation into that period isn’t completed.
continued at…http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126291467396720881.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

Delay sought in detainee (terrorist) abuse court martial

Jan. 7, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Posted at: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/07/Delay-sought-in-detainee-abuse-case/UPI-66431262898554/

NORFOLK, Va., Jan. 7 (UPI) — An attorney for a Navy SEAL accused of abusing an Iraqi detainee says prosecutors want to delay her client’s special court-martial in Norfolk, Va.

Attorney Monica Lombardi, who is representing Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas Jr., said she opposes the prosecutors’ request to have the trial set for next Monday rescheduled for March 29, The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot said Wednesday.

Along with Petty Officers 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe, Huertas is accused of taking part in the mistreatment of Ahmed Hashim Abed following the Iraqi detainee’s September capture.

Huertas stands accused of dereliction of duty, making a false statement and impeding an investigation.

Motions regarding the schedule for Huertas’ court-martial will be heard by a military judge Monday, the Virginian-Pilot said.
—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

Jan 8, 2010
Officer faces court martial
The alleged offence is believed to involve a female subordinate
By Jermyn Chow

Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick Teo Li-Wei, 33, appeared before a subordinate military court at the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Court Martial Centre in Choa Chu Kang Way yesterday. — PHOTO: MINDEF

A HIGH-RANKING army officer has been brought before a tribunal for alleged misconduct under military law.

His alleged offence is believed to involve a female subordinate, although the exact nature of what happened is unknown for now.

Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick Teo Li-Wei, 33, a deputy director in the Defence Ministry’s defence policy office, appeared before a subordinate military court at the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Court Martial Centre in Choa Chu Kang Way on Saturday.

No charges were read out at the hearing. His lawyers asked for the court martial to be adjourned for three weeks to give them time to make legal representations to the military prosecutor.

The Straits Times understands that the defence team will use the time to discuss the charges with the prosecution.

The Defence Ministry declined to comment on the case or the legal proceedings.

—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN-05) reply to Major General Charles Cleveland’s letter RE: Court martial of the 3 Navy SEALs for allegedly abusing a top al Qaeda operative

Below is the letter:

January 4, 2010
Major General Charles T. javascript:void(0)Cleveland

Commander, Special Operations Command Central
U.S. Central Command
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5101

Dear General Cleveland:
I received your letter of December 15, 2009, regarding the pending courts-martial of Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe and Keefe; and I appreciate your office’s attempting to set the record straight and clarify what you describe as the “incomplete and factually inaccurate” press coverage of the situation. Having reviewed all of the material you provided, I still have to strongly disagree with the decision of your officers to pursue punishment of these Navy SEALs.
Ahmed Hashim Abed was one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq; responsible for the murders of innocent American civilians and numerous attacks on American and coalition forces. The injuries to Mr. Abed were, as you readily admit, relatively minor and certainly pale in comparison to the brutality of the crimes he helped perpetrate. While Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe and Keefe may have been wrong to not fully cooperate with investigators, it seems to me that the punishment still far exceeds the crime. In my opinion, prosecutorial discretion should have been exercised.
Beyond the fates of the three individual sailors, I have some general concerns about this case that are only reinforced by your letter. First, the fact that fellow U.S. service personnel initially raised the accusations against Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe and Keefe strongly suggests that we have created a culture within our Armed Forces where our military personnel are now more concerned about protecting themselves from legal jeopardy for every action or statement, than they are about fighting the enemy. Our troops and these SEALs need to be bold and decisive in combat; not hesitant and over-thinking every action for fear of prosecution. We are in a war that we must win against a determined, patient enemy who already believes we do not have the will to do what is necessary to defeat them.
Second, because of the intensive media coverage of this case – even if it is incomplete and factually inaccurate as you describe, this is the public’s perception of the case – the American people are outraged by the courts-martial of individuals who should be hailed as heroes. In fact, over 30,000 Americans have signed my online petition calling for an end to this prosecution. Perhaps even more alarming than the decline in morale this case has caused the country is the boost in morale and confidence that this case gives to Al Qaeda terrorists, who as I said, already believe America does not have the will or stomach to do what is necessary to defeat them.
General Cleveland, you are a distinguished soldier and former Special Forces operator yourself. I have the utmost respect for you personally. In this case the American people’s perception is that you are unfairly prosecuting three heroes based, at least in part, upon the word of an inhumane monster. Al-Qaeda’s own handbook instructs their operatives to allege detainee abuse if detained by American forces. In fact, al-Qaeda operatives are trained to self-inflict injuries for the sole purpose of accusing U.S. forces of abuse. We’ve seen repeated cases of this since the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan began. In my opinion, carrying forward these courts-martial will do our Nation and our Armed Forces more harm than good. I respectfully and strongly urge you to exercise your leadership authority, stop the impending trials and drop the charges against these American heroes.
I await your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton
Member of Congress
CC: Hon. Barack Obama, Hon. Robert Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen

—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

 
Page 3 of 111«12345»102030...Last »