|
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 |
Attachment:
binPZcvw7CIMC.bin
Description: Binary data