|
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." Here is the relevant language from Hohman: 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 From: neal@puckettfaraj.com Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:53:50 -0400 CC: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil To: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com What does it say? 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:
|