In this episode, we examine CAAF’s analysis concerning when an accused makes a prima facie (pronounced pree-muh fah-shuh according to the majority of the criminal law department) showing that race played a role in the panel selection process at their court martial, whether that panel was properly constituted. The Court weighed their previous precedent which allowed a race conscious selection process for the purpose of inclusion in contrast with the Supreme Court’s ruling in US v Batson which said “race is an impermissible criterion for selection of jurors.” This case is very important for judge advocates to understand as they advise their commanders on selecting court martial members (jurors).

Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp

You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

In this episode we examine CAAF's analysis concerning how and when a statement qualifies under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rules and whether appellant's conviction is legally sufficient.

Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp

You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

In this final part, we conclude our analysis of the CAAF's decision in United States v. Hasan. This episode addresses the SJA's role in providing Article 34 advice, ACCA's decision to not recuse itself, and MAJ Hasan's continued self representation during the post-trial phase. Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

In this second of a three parts, we continue our analysis of the CAAF's decision in United States v. Hasan. This episode addresses whether the military judge has a duty to excuse a panel member for cause and the constitutionality of Article 45(b) of the UCMJ.Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

In this first of a three parts, we examine the the CAAF's decision in United States v. Hasan. This episode addresses the history of this case, and explains the CAAF's opinion addressing MAJ Hasan's decision to represent himself and the Military Judge's decision to close a portion of the trial to the public. Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

These two cases examine the CAAF’s jurisdiction when deciding on writs filed by SVCs. Specifically, the CAAF decides whether they have the authority to review decisions made by the CCA’s when asked by an accused, and by an SVC, respectively.

Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp

You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

In this case, CAAF considers whether courts-martial defendants have a right to a unanimous guilty verdict under the Sixth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, or the Fifth Amendment component of equal protection.

Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp

You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

This case clarifies what “viewing” means for purposes of Article 120c, Indecent Viewing. Specifically, CAAF considers whether “viewing” includes viewing a simultaneously created visual image of the private area of another person.

Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp

You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

CAAF explores the appellant’s claims that he suffered cruel and unusual punishment under Article 55, UCMJ and the 8th Amendment during a period of post-trial confinement in a civilian jail.

Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp

You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)

CAAF considers whether a military judge abused his discretion by failing to abide by the heightened plea inquiry where the charged offense implicated both criminal and constitutionally protected conduct.

Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School on Facebook (tjaglcs), LinkedIn (tjaglcs), or visit our website for more resources at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/leapp

You can also connect directly with the Criminal Law Department on Facebook (tjaglcs_crimlaw) or Instagram (tjaglcs_crimlaw)