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

RE: US v. Jenkins: Request for Clarification of Court Rules (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Sir,

As of this morning, the Government and Defense are discussing an
alternate disposition in this case.  We will keep the Court informed of
developments on that end IAW the ROPBACM.    

Should the case eventually require docketing, I am not available for
trial at Ft. Bragg until o/a 5 AUG 10 due to additional courts-martial
being tried in theater, TDS personnel shortages which require my
continued presence in Afghanistan during JUN 10, and my redeployment in
mid-JUL 10.  

I am currently scheduled to redeploy the second week in JUL to attend a
contracting course at TJAGCLS which is required for my follow-on
assignment.  I will be available to travel to Ft. Bragg immediately
after the completion of this course, and therefore request docketing of
this case o/a 5 AUG to accommodate these issues.

For purposes of arraignment - Defense has already begun coordination
with the local TDS office to detail a second attorney to the case who
can represent SFC Jenkins at his arraignment, should the Court prefer to
execute arraignment before o/a 5 AUG.    

Thank you,
V/R
CPT Di Muro 

CPT REBECCA N. DI MURO
DEFENSE COUNSEL
TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICES, AFGHANISTAN FIELD OFFICE
NIPR: 318-431-4364
SIPR: 318-431-5344
ROSHAN: 0793158523


-----Original Message-----
From: McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial Counsel) 
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:17 PM
To: Parrish, Patrick J COL MIL USA FORSCOM; Dubbeling, Paul M. MAJ USA
(82D SBDE, SJA)
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Falke, Susanne C CIV DEU USA; Craver,
Stacy L Ms CIV USA FORSCOM; Nance, Jeffery R; Guillen, Robert A CPT MIL
USA USA USARCENT 1st TSC; Dimuro, Rebecca N. USA CPT USA OSJA TDS;
Campbell, Wendy D. SGT USA (82nd SB - Paralegal)
Subject: RE: US v. Jenkins: Request for Clarification of Court Rules

Sir,

Attached please find the referred charge sheet, ERB, and CMCOs.  The
Government has preferred additional charges in this case which have not
yet been referred.  The Government will seek to join those charges to
the original charges under RCM 601 and they will be forwarded to the
court as soon as they are referred.  

The Government will be ready for trial on 15 June.  The Government is
currently working to transfer SFC Jenkins to Fort Bragg and will notify
the court as soon as this transfer is scheduled in order to arrange an
arraignment date.  

V/R

Amy H. McCarthy
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel
Task Force Provider
82nd Sustainment Brigade
Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan

NIPR: amy.mccarthy@afghan.swa.army.mil
SIPR: amy.mccarthy@afghan.swa.army.smil.mil

DSN: 318-431-4808


-----Original Message-----
From: Parrish, Patrick J COL MIL USA FORSCOM
[mailto:patrick.parrish@us.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:32 PM
To: Dubbeling, Paul M. MAJ USA (82D SBDE, SJA)
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Falke, Susanne C CIV DEU USA; Craver,
Stacy L Ms CIV USA FORSCOM; Nance, Jeffery R; Guillen, Robert A CPT MIL
USA USA USARCENT 1st TSC; McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial
Counsel); Dimuro, Rebecca N. USA CPT USA OSJA TDS
Subject: RE: US v. Jenkins: Request for Clarification of Court Rules

Counsel: I have not received anything from any counsel concerning this
case, which includes the charge sheet, convening order(s), and the ERB.
I would appreciate receiving those documents.

I also need the date the Government is ready for arraignment and trial
and the same dates from the Defense so I can set an arraignment/trial
date and dates when motions are due.  Counsel should keep in mind when
requesting a trial date that counsel should ask for a date when counsel
will be ready, independent of the docket schedule as the docket changes
from time to time.

In accordance with the Rules of Practice before Army Courts-Martial,
paragraphs 2.1.5 and 2.2.5 both TC and DC, no later than seven duty days
prior to trial, will provide the judge and opposing counsel and the
court reporter a list containing each witness' full name (spelled
correctly) and unit/duty station or city/state of residence (as
applicable) for each witness to be called during the merits and
sentencing phases of trial.  The rules do not include generally
providing any pretrial statements by any witness.

Counsel should not provide the court with any pretrial statements by any
witness unless it is necessary as part of a motion.  For instance, if
the DC files a motion to produce a witness, then filing a pretrial
statement by that witness as part of the motion may (or may not) be
helpful. 

The court will have a discussion during the bridge the gap session after
trial, in a more direct manner, with any counsel who sends the court the
pretrial statement of a witness which is not part of a motion.

If you need any further clarification, please advise.

COL Parrish 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dubbeling, Paul M. MAJ USA (82D SBDE, SJA)
[mailto:paul.dubbeling@afghan.swa.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:27 AM
To: Parrish, Patrick J COL MIL USA FORSCOM
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Falke, Susanne C CIV DEU USA; Craver,
Stacy L Ms CIV USA FORSCOM; Nance, Jeffery R; Guillen, Robert A CPT MIL
USA USA USARCENT 1st TSC; McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial
Counsel); Dimuro, Rebecca N. USA CPT USA OSJA TDS
Subject: US v. Jenkins: Request for Clarification of Court Rules

Sir,

As it has been an issue in other cases and in this case, the Government
requests clarification as to what documents are properly forwarded to
the Court by both trial and defense counsel.

In this case, the Defense has sent to the Court its requested witness
list and also statements obtained during its own pretrial preparation.
These statements are on DA Form 2823 but are attested by a Defense
paralegal.  These statements are themselves inadmissible and give the
appearance of impermissible bolstering of the Defense theory of the case
before the Court.  The Government, of course, agrees that the witness
list and such statements are properly provided to the trial counsel
pursuant to RCM 701(b)(1), but urges that forwarding to the Court should
be reserved for official motions in which the admissibility and
evidentiary value of such statements is properly subjected to the
adversarial process.  Additionally, the Government recognizes that its
own disclosures under Rule 304 should be limited to disclosure to the
defense counsel.

The Government respectfully requests clarification as to what documents
will be submitted to the Court directly and that the Court not consider
any documents previously submitted not within the purview of that
guidance.

Respectfully,
MAJ Dubbeling

MAJ Paul Dubbeling
Brigade Judge Advocate
82nd Sustainment Brigade
DSN: 318-431-3305
SVoIP: 302-431-5176
Roshan:  0799773584
NIPR: paul.dubbeling@afghan.swa.army.mil
SIPR: paul.dubbeling@afghan.swa.army.smil.mil


-----Original Message-----
From: Craver, Stacy L Ms CIV USA FORSCOM
[mailto:stacy.carkeet@us.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 4:37 PM
To: Nance, Jeffery R; McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial
Counsel); Dimuro, Rebecca N. USA CPT USA OSJA TDS
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Dubbeling, Paul M. MAJ USA (82D SBDE,
SJA); Parrish, Patrick J COL MIL USA FORSCOM; Falke, Susanne C CIV DEU
USA
Subject: RE: US v. Jenkins - change of venue

Please note that Colonel Parrish's e-mail address on the prior messages
is incorrect.  I have forwarded the previous e-mails to him.

For all future correspondence, please use:  Patrick.parrish@us.army.mil

Stacy Craver
Lead Court Reporter/Clerk of Court
XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg, NC 28310
stacy.craver@us.army.mil
910-396-6373

-----Original Message-----
From: Nance, Jeffery R COL USF-I SJA Chief Court Justice, 5th JC
[mailto:jeffery.nance@iraq.centcom.mil]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 07:00
To: McCarthy, Amy H CPT USA 82nd SB - Trial Counsel; Dimuro, Rebecca N
USA CPT USA OSJA TDS
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Dubbeling, Paul M MAJ USA 82D SBDE, SJA;
Craver, Stacy L Ms CIV USA FORSCOM;
patrick.j.parrish@kuwait.swa.army.mil; Falke, Susanne C CIV DEU USA
Subject: RE: US v. Jenkins - change of venue

No problem with trying the case at Bragg.  Makes sense at this point. 

Please send all materials, including every document you each have sent
to me in the case, to the clerk of court (Ms. Carver) who is CCd above.
COL Parrish will assign the case to a judge.

COL Nance 

-----Original Message-----
From: McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial Counsel)
[mailto:amy.mccarthy@afghan.swa.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 7:22 PM
To: Nance, Jeffery R COL USF-I SJA Chief Court Justice, 5th JC; Falke,
Susanne C CIV DEU USA
Cc: Dimuro, Rebecca N USA CPT USA OSJA TDS; haytham@puckettfaraj.com;
Dubbeling, Paul M MAJ USA 82D SBDE, SJA
Subject: US v. Jenkins - change of venue

Sir, 

 

The Government is requesting a change of venue in this case.  Currently,
the majority of potential witnesses are state-side and most are
deactivated Reservists.  We are requesting that this case be moved to
Fort Bragg where our GCMCA is located.  A review of the current docket
shows the first available trial date there on 21 June.  

 

We have discussed with Defense and, subject to potential issues in
scheduling, they are not opposed to the move.

 

Sir, subject to your guidance we will submit an EDN to the Judge at Fort
Bragg.    

 

V/R 

Amy H. McCarthy
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel
Task Force Provider
82nd Sustainment Brigade
Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan 

NIPR: amy.mccarthy@afghan.swa.army.mil
SIPR: amy.mccarthy@afghan.swa.army.smil.mil 

DSN: 318-431-4808 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO