Replies

The prosecution/government brought up Lakin’s motive front and center to the court, which they used to convict him on the missing movement that he pled not guilty. It is part of the court record. It is irrelevant that the defense omitted it. It is now fair game for Lakin to use it that Obama is not a natural born citizen in any appeal.

It is now fair game for Lakin to use it that Obama is not a natural born citizen in any appeal.

If Lakin is wise, he'll refrain from accepting the expert legal advice offered by birthers on this matter.

The prosecution/government brought up Lakin’s motive front and center to the court, which they used to convict him on the missing movement that he pled not guilty. It is part of the court record. It is irrelevant that the defense omitted it.

The defense was prevented from using it by Judge Lind's orders, had Lakin been able to use it as the prosecution did he probably would have pleaded not guilty from the beginning.

"The prosecution/government brought up Lakin’s motive front and center to the court, which they used to convict him on the missing movement that he pled not guilty."

Obviously, I don't have access to the trial record, but that is highly unlikely. Motive is not an element of Art. 87. What the government is required to proof is that he missed it either through design or neglect - not why he was negligent or why he designed to miss it, just that he did.

However, the "why" is something that the prosecution can explore as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Are you sure that this isn't where this evidence was introduced?

Lakin could argue that the MJ was wrong when she allowed this testimony at sentencing. Of course, such an assertion wouldn't have any chance of prevailing on appeal because the government would be clearly within the boundaries established by MCM to raise such motivation at sentencing.

But, the "why" he did it with respect to the finding of guilty, is wholly irrelevant to the appellate court.

~~~~~~~

Dwight Sullivan says:
December 15, 2010 at 7:47 pm

Tes, the government is alllowed to put on a case in rebuttal to the defense’s case if it wants. The court-martial will resume with an Article 39(a) session at 0830 tomorrow, and then a proceeding with the members at 0900.

The first thing that will happen in front of the members is the military judge will ask the government if it has a case in rebuttal. My guess is that the TCs will — and they have all night to prepare, a fortuitous bit of scheduling for the government.

http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/15/united-states-v-lakin-liveblogging-day-two-wrap/