In this episode, we discuss CAAF's decision in United States v. Ramirez. Specifically, we examine when a military judge must allow questions concerning racial bias during voir dire - while discussing voir dire and bias generally. Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

In this episode, we discuss CAAF's decision in United States v. Warda. Here, the CAAF examines the remedy when the Government is unable to produce documents required by Rule for Courts-Martial 703. The Court provides rules for practitioners concerning their discovery obligations. Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

In this episode, we discuss CAAF's decision in United States v. Brown. Specifically, we examine CAAF's view of Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Marital and what constitutes "presence" for disrespect of a noncommissioned officer. 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 latest case concerning unlawful command influence. Specifically, we examine the difference between actual and apparent unlawful command influence, and the influence that judge advocates can have on the system. 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 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)