[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: US v. Rowe - Defense Motion to Dismiss



I don't think so, but we can definitely use the judge's ruling after Friday's 39a.  

We can, however, use this email in arguing the motion.



-----Original Message-----
From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 13:37
To: Shinn Capt Scott R
Subject: RE: US v. Rowe - Defense Motion to Dismiss

Can I use this email in my opening statement?

-----Original Message-----
From: Shinn Capt Scott R [mailto:scott.shinn@usmc.mil] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:48 PM
To: Haytham Faraj
Subject: RE: US v. Rowe - Defense Motion to Dismiss

Haytham,
  Looks like we got most of what we want already - the gov't to commit that
most are charged in the alternative.

"The government offers the twelve remaining specifications to the members as
alternative forms of proof.

If the members do not find the accused guilty of Charge aggravated sexual
assault they can find him guilty of abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual
contact, assault consummated by a battery, or indecent act.

If the members do not find the accused guilty of any non-consensual sexual
offense, they can find him guilty of adultery or the conduct unbecoming
charge.

If the members do not find the accused guilty of extortion they can still
find him guilty of communicating indecent language."

~Russ

-----Original Message-----
From: Combe Capt Peter C 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:12
To: Shinn Capt Scott R; Hale LtCol Charles C
Cc: 'Haytham Faraj'; 'jeffrey.hoey@navy.mil'; Finnen 2nd Lt Mary C
Subject: RE: US v. Rowe - Defene Motion to Dismiss

Good morning Sir,

Attached is the government response to the defense motion to dismiss for
multiplicity/unreasonable multiplication of charges.

Two other matters to address:

1. Based on the defense's filing of a motion to compel production of
witnesses yesterday, the government requests some latitude in filing its
response by noon today.

2. So that all parties are aware, 2ndLt Mary Finnen, a student judge
advocate on ADSW awaiting TBS, will be joining the government in prosecuting
the case.  I will act as lead counsel in all respects, but she will be
present for all sessions of court, including the Article 39a scheduled for
this Friday.  Would it be possible to swear her in this Friday?

Very Respectfully,
Capt Peter C. Combe II
Trial Counsel
Office of the SJA, MCB Quantico
3250 Catlin Ave.
Quantico, VA 22134 

Comm: (703) 784-0037  DSN: 278
Fax: (703) 784-0035  DSN: 278


-----Original Message-----
From: Shinn Capt Scott R 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 14:09
To: Hale LtCol Charles C
Cc: Haytham Faraj; Combe Capt Peter C; jeffrey.hoey@navy.mil
Subject: US v. Rowe - Defene Motion to Dismiss

Good afternoon and Happy Birthday, sir -
  I am the newly detailed defense counsel for Capt Rowe, replacing Maj
McConnell.  Mr. Faraj and I respectfully submit to Court and opposing
counsel the attached Motion to Dismiss - Multiplicity/Unreasonable
Multiplication of Charges.


V/r,

S. Russell Shinn
Captain, US Marine Corps

Officer-in-Charge
Defense Counsel Assistance Program
Marine Corps Defense Services Organization

703.614.0885 (w)
703.470.0671 (c)

"Marines Defending Marines"

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature