|
I think it would be a bold statement about the nature of legal representation if the Court finds that a video is an adequate substitute for a counsel with that knowledge sitting at the defense table. Unlike a video, a counsel is able to use his human intellect to synthesize that unique knowledge of a site visit against the events as they unfold at trial, and take appropriate action. And it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty how events will unfold at trial and how that unique knowledge would be synthesized. Especially when the Government will have the advantage of one of its counsel having that experience. Although that is certainly the easy way for a a prosecution minded judge to dispose of the issue--"They can watch the video." I have no doubt that is what Judge Stucky would (will) say. From: haytham@puckettfaraj.com To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com CC: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil Subject: Hohman decision Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:15:02 -0400 My attention went to the fact that the same administrative authorities whom the Government insists acted appropriately in our case, denied Muth a second extension and approved only a one month extension. I read this as the court setting up a test to determine whether a replacement counsel has sufficient time to get ready. We did not file a motion challenging our separation and took no action to raise the issue until the Hutchins decision. I think the visit to Iraq will become irrelevant since Vokey video recorded the depositions and he can be debriefed on his walk through the terrain.
What we have not done is create a record to show that ALL replacement counsel have been assigned more as place holders rather than to represent Wuterich as Vokey had represented Wuterich. Meredith has been the most engaged since we left active duty but I think even she would agree that she has not had sufficient time to get up to speed on this case.
From: Babu Kaza [mailto:babu_kaza@hotmail.com]
It's per curiam, so it is short. But it points out that the MJ erred by letting the DC EAS without ensuring good cause was placed on the record. It faults the defense for not raising an objection with the MJ prior to the severance. But the relevant language on prejudice is below, and I think that it indicates that the focus is on whether replacement counsel can be sufficient. For Wuterich, it is easy to say that replacement counsel would not be sufficient, due to the site visit. Incidentally, from skimming Jones' ruling, it is pretty clear that he didn't even bother to read Haytham's motion. And he literally cuts and pastes from the Government's response. It is shocking in how poorly written it is. It redefines the word "crap." We clarified in Hutchins that “[a]lthough separation from active duty normally terminates representation, highly contextual circumstances may warrant an exception from this general guidance in a particular case.” Id. at 290-91. In this case, Appellant has not demonstrated any circumstances that would warrant an exception from the general guidance. Moreover, under the specific circumstances of this case, including the responsibilities of Capt Muth in relation to the defense team, Appellant has not established that the assignment of Capt Kunce as detailed military defense counsel on December 3, 2009, was insufficient to remedy the procedural error in the severance of Capt Muth’s status as detailed military defense counsel on December 1, 2009. Subject: Re: Court Action in Wuterich 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 888-970-0005 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 May 31, 2011, at 5:28 PM, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com wrote:
The Hohman opinion is out already.
In a message dated 5/31/2011 9:03:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com writes:
|