Chris, Here is a link to a few cases under CAAF regarding speedy trial under Article 10 and the 5th and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/VB4.htm I have read through the first two (of four) cases above, United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308 (C.A.A.F. 2009) and United States v. Tippit, 65 M.J. 69 (C.A.A.F. 2007). Both of these cases appear very weak for the appellants, however, they provide a framework for analysis of the constitutional (6th Amend. (speedy trial), 5th Amend. (due process)), statutory (Art. 10 UCMJ), and regulatory (RCM 707) safeguards. The cases are a good quick read. Thompson discusses the RCM 707 issue and Art. 10 issue, especially concerning the trial counsel's requirement to show due diligence to keep the case moving forward. Tippit is a case where they suggest wrongful "withdrawal"/"dismissal" with a key discussion on the semantics of those words. Tippit's case was dismissed prior to referral and then was re-preferred (a similarity, in part, to my case). Neither of these cases took that long to prosecute. Both of these cases included guilty pleas. Both included joint/parallel investigations by civilian authorities. The fact that CAAF took these cases makes me raise an eyebrow--neither seems to be pressing on any matter of law that isn't fairly clear in the rules. The Court did choose to address the Art. 10 issues. My case shows a much more lengthy delay and two arraignments, with no explicit reason given by the trial counsel on the withdrawal of the charges. Please request a copy of the transcript from the Article 32 Hearing in April. Also, if you can do a cite check on these two cases and provide any other background cases that may play into a speedy trial motion addressing RCM 707 and Art. 10 especially, I can draft a motion using the background of Barker v. Wingo (6th Amend.) and due process cases. One of the key statements made by CAAF was that Art. 10 is a more stringent safeguard than the 6th Amend., so although speedy-trial/due process on the constitutional level may not win the day, by asserting a lower standard and higher expectations of the military justice system for efficiency and time management, we may have a colorable argument under Art. 10. The explicit rule of RCM 707 does not play in my favor, however, the spirit of the law and the rigid requirements upon the government to move cases along helps with a strong Art. 10 motion. S/F Doug Douglas S. Wacker Captain, USMC Future Operations Officer MWHS-3, 3D MAW douglas.wacker@usmc.mil Wk: 858-577-6730 DSN: 267-6730 Cell: 858-401-9392 "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." ~George S. Patton -----Original Message----- From: Hur Capt Christian P Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 7:28 To: douglas.wacker@gmail.com; Wacker Capt Douglas S Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com Subject: speedy trial clock I don't know Doug, maybe an Article 10 argument is colorable but speedy trial clock seems weak based on my calculations. See attached. Christian P. Hur Captain, USMC Senior Defense Counsel Telephone: (619) 524-8713 Fax: (619) 524-6784 Address: Defense Section, Bldg 12, 1st Floor, MCRD, San Diego, CA 92140 This email may contain Attorney Work Product. Please delete if you received this message in error.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature