CGCCACoast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals
References in periodicals archive ?
CGCCA granted relief on sentence severity grounds in two cases.
The CGCCA found that the operations officer's testimony was proper aggravation evidence.
On appeal to the CGCCA, Smith argued that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the military judge ruled that the evidence that he sought to cross-examine SR on was barred by MRE 412.
The CGCCA first addressed the proper role of the SJA with respect to post-trial matters.
However, the CGCCA disagreed and found the trial court's finding on the issue of the DD Form 214 to be erroneous.
Next the CAAF looked at whether the CGCCA could approve a conviction for the lesser included offense of assault consummated by a battery, when both parties waived it and the military judge did not instruct the members on it.
If the accused's conversation with law enforcement crosses the line set by Bradshaw, the Edwards rule still requires that any subsequent waiver of the right to counsel must be shown to "not only be voluntary, but also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." (151) This brings us to the recent CGCCA case of United States v.
The military judge denied the defense motion to dismiss, and the defense filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus with the CGCCA. (132) The CGCCA denied the writ.
The defense counsel claimed that, had she known of the e-mail, she would have questioned the members about it during voir dire and "might have elicited some information as to bias." (212) "Trial defense counsel did not challenge any member for cause after learning of the SJA's e-mail or specifically ask the military judge to permit additional voir dire on that issue." (213) The CGCCA held that the e-mail on its own was not "an apparent ground for challenge for cause" and ruled that the military judge did not abuse his discretion by failing to sua sponte reopen voir dire.
On appeal, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA) determined the absence charge was a lesser-included offense of the breaking restriction charge; thus, the two charges were multiplicious.
On appeal, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA) set aside the CA's action due to a mutual misunderstanding regarding a material term of the pretrial agreement.