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

RE: Edited Draft



Roger...I think in Hohman the counsel was not augmented before he went into the IRR, and Gannon was claiming in that case that there was nothing they could do unless he accepted augmentation.  He was probably wrong.  But in this case, as you mentioned, Vokey is retired, and there is precedent in bringing back to active-duty someone who is retired.  

 

Subject: Re: Edited Draft
From: neal@puckettfaraj.com
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:50:13 -0500
CC: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; dhsullivan@aol.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil
To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com

I believe that we were mistaken as the nature of the conflict.  Have no concern about not being listed by name on the brief.  We didn't overlook the remedy of Vokey being recalled.  We argued it during the motion hearing.  And Nick Gannon took the position that they had researched the availability of that remedy on the same motion in a case called, Hohman, and determined they had no authority to involuntarily recall an officer to active duty (though I don't think that officer had retired).
S/f,
Neal
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 Feb 22, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Babu Kaza wrote:

All,
 
Attached are my edits.  I added in a couple of case cites.  US v. Catt is directly on point to an extent, as it involved an MJ erroneously (although in good faith) finding a conflict of interest and severing the A/C relationship.  (The Court found that to be per se prejudicial error.) 
 
I think the MFR provides something of a problem for us, but I think we can respond most effectively in the Reply, after we see which way the Government goes. 
 
My concern at this point is the portion of the MFR where defense counsel affirmatively state that this is an actual, not a potential conflict.  And beyond that, where LtCol Vokey minimizes his involvement in the defense.  Like I said, I think we can respond most effectively to that in the Reply after seeing what Col Puleo excretes in his Answer. 
 
However, in the short term, unless I am missing something, I think we will be arguing an appellate position different than the one that was taken at trial.  Depending on how it plays out, we may need to argue on appeal that the trial defense lawyers were inaccurate in some respects, or at least overlooked an available remedy (Vokey being recalled).  As that is the case, what do you think about not having the trial defense team's names on the appellate brief, in order to boost our credibility??
 
s/f
 
Babu 
 
 
 
> Subject: Edited Draft
> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:07:19 -0500
> From: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil
> To: dhsullivan@aol.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com
> CC: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com
> 
> Here's the draft with my edits. Please take a look and get your input back to me.
> 
> v/r
> Maj Sip
<Wuterich_CAAF_Supplemental_Brief_(Draft_2)_(Sullivan)_Kaza edits.doc>