Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share NMCCA: United States v. Jennings, No. 201700241
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
NMCCA: United States v. Jennings, No. 201700241
Argued on October 25, 2018.
Case Summary: A panel of officers sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of six specifications under Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of solicitation under Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced the appellant to three years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed.
Issues:
I. Whether the government failed to disprove the defense of entrapment—that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent did not induce the Appellant or that the Appellant was predisposed to commit this crime.
II. The government cannot use liberty risk as a subterfuge for restriction. Here, the government held the appellant on liberty risk, which restricted him to base, for 732 days (513 days prior to arraignment). Did the government’s actions constitute restriction under Rule for Courts-Martial 304(a)(2) and trigger Rule for Courts-Martial 707?
III. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a servicemember the right to effective assistance of counsel. The appellant spent 732 days in restriction, which started the government’s Rule for Courts-Martial 707
http://www.caaflog.com/2018/11/26/nmcca-argument-audio-jennings/
Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.
View all episodes
By CAAFlogArgued on October 25, 2018.
Case Summary: A panel of officers sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of six specifications under Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of solicitation under Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced the appellant to three years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed.
Issues:
I. Whether the government failed to disprove the defense of entrapment—that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent did not induce the Appellant or that the Appellant was predisposed to commit this crime.
II. The government cannot use liberty risk as a subterfuge for restriction. Here, the government held the appellant on liberty risk, which restricted him to base, for 732 days (513 days prior to arraignment). Did the government’s actions constitute restriction under Rule for Courts-Martial 304(a)(2) and trigger Rule for Courts-Martial 707?
III. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a servicemember the right to effective assistance of counsel. The appellant spent 732 days in restriction, which started the government’s Rule for Courts-Martial 707
http://www.caaflog.com/2018/11/26/nmcca-argument-audio-jennings/
Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.