|
Okay, Keller is confusing the shit out of me. Here's what he
writes:
"LtCol Tafoya informed the Military Judge that as of March 2009, no
definitive decision had been reached about whether Mr. Vokey would represent
Appellant in a civilian capacity. (R. 3, Mar. 10, 2009.) Several weeks later, on
March 22, 2009, the Defense informed the Military Judge that Mr. Vokey was
indeed on the defense team, but Appellant waived Mr. Vokeyâs presence. (R. 5-6,
Mar. 22, 2010.) Despite this, after a court recess for lunch, Mr. Vokey sat at
counsel table with Appellant. (R. 64, Mar. 22, 2010.) Mr. Vokey then informed
the Military Judge that he had continued to represent Appellant since departing
active duty (R. 65, Mar. 22, 2010)."
Note that Keller refers to a 10 March 2009 Article 39(a) session, then says
several weeks later, there was a 22 March 2009 Article 39(a) session, but he
identifies it in his citation as a 22 March 2010 Article 39(a) session.
Which is right???
Keller continues the confusion in the next sentence, which states:
"Mr. Vokey was also present on March 23 and 24, 2010. (R. 1, Mar. 23-24,
2010.)" The next sentence again refers to events he identifies as
occurring in 2010: "On March 26, 2010, Mr. Vokey was absent, and Appellant
waived his presence. (R. 1, Mar. 26, 2010.)" Which is
right? Did those Article 39(a) sessions occur in March 2009 or March
2010? The answer to that question matters quite a bit.
Semper Fi,
DHS |