So the MJ can make a legal determination and dismiss? Just chatted briefly with the prosecutor on the phone. Told him we were looking for a forensic psych expert, and he said they were looking, too. I said, "why, shouldn't you simply be drafting dismissal papers?" Here we have a medical opinion signed by THREE Air Force doctors. So we're going expert shopping to keep the case alive? But, I digress. He did say that the SJA immediately got on the phone with the higher HQ SJA to brief him on the report. They may figure out that a prosecution is a waste of time and money with all of the experts flying in. That's my fantasy outcome. Won't happen, of course.
Neal A. Puckett, Esq LtCol, USMC (Ret) Puckett & Faraj, PC 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314 703.706.9566
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.
On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Haytham wrote: I think under MRE 104b, this is a matter for the judge to decide first. This isn't a battle of the experts. This is the government's expert. Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone
Query, isn't his mental responsibility at the time of the offense a jury question? In other words, this is not a motion to dismiss, is it? I just don't remember. Never had this happen with a 706.
Neal A. Puckett, Esq LtCol, USMC (Ret) Puckett & Faraj, PC 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314 703.706.9566
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.
On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Haytham Faraj wrote: Make sure the discovery request they sent you meets all the requirements per the Rule. In fact, go ahead and deny it like prosecutors normally do. DENIED: Irrelevant, overbroad, does not meet the requirements as set forth by the MCM. From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:06 PM
To: Kouba, Dustin B Capt USAF ACC 7 BW/JA
Cc: Ranae Capt USAF AFLOA AFLOA/ADC Doser-Pascual L; Faraj Haytham
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Burke - Second Discovery Request Dustin, You mean Gen Spears isn't dismissing the charges? V/r, 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210 The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution. On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Kouba, Dustin B Capt USAF ACC 7 BW/JA wrote:
Mr. Puckett and Capt D-P, Attached please find the Government’s Second Discovery Request dated 6 July 2011. Dustin B. Kouba, Capt, USAF <Second Discovery Request 6 Jul 11 - Burke.pdf>
|