Replies

.. Ping!

From the lib military jag site, CAAFlog

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

LTC Lakin voir dire
December 1, 2010

A thought as we get closer to trial. As the Greeley Gazette article

and the current postings at such places as PostandEmail, safeguardourconstitution, and wing nut daily, demonstrate there is a great deal of criticism about Judge Lind.

Some of that criticism has been harsh and excessive. Other than a statement from LTC Lakin’s lawyer that the judge was right, there has been no public disavowel from LTC Lakin. I don’t know he required to do so, except in an effort to get clemency. But . . . .

Will the new defense counsel voir dire the military judge and challenge her or ask her to recuse herself?

If this is to be a members trial, then I think she can clearly say the right words in response to a voir dire and not recuse herself and not to have been found in error on appeal.

But, what if LTC Lakin elects a judge alone trial? Maybe that’s different (unless it is part of a PTA)? Implied bias can be a reason to challenge a military judge just as much as members.

Remember the Marine case from some years ago, where the SJA got heavily involved in trying to remove the MJ because of her alleged relationship with the defense counsel.

http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/ltc-lakin-10/

_____________________________________________

Sidebar:

~~~~~~~~~

Federal Rule of Evidence change
December 1, 2010

An important change to the Federal Rules of Evidence begins today. That means, absent Presidential action, the rule will take affect in the military no later than 18 months from now. This is a significant change requiring the prosecution to corroborate statements against penal interest.

On December 1, 2010, a new amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence takes effect.

http://federalevidence.com/blog/2010/december/new-fre-amendment-fre-804b3-declarations-against-interest-takes-effect-today-part?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FederalEvidenceReview+(Federal+Evidence+Review+-+Highlighting+Recent+Federal+Evidence+Cases+and+Developments)

The rule concerns the admission of statements against interest under FRE 804(b)(3) has been amended so that the corroborating circumstances requirement for admission of a declaration against interest applies to statements against penal interest introduced by the government as well as those by the defendant in criminal cases. This requirement previously applied to statements introduced by the defendant.

http://court-martial-ucmj.com/evidence/federal-rule-of-evidence-change/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prayers for Ltc Lakin, his legal team, and the brave warriors who persevere fighting for truth.