Sir, The Defense request for delay was submitted via electronic docketing request (attached). MAJ Charles Kuhfahl, military judge, granted the defense request via email on 13 March. 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: Parrish, Patrick J COL MIL USA FORSCOM [mailto:patrick.parrish@us.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:32 PM To: Dubbeling, Paul M. MAJ USA (82D SBDE, SJA); McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial Counsel) Cc: Craver, Stacy L Ms CIV USA FORSCOM; Guillen, Robert A CPT MIL USA USA USARCENT 1st TSC; Dimuro, Rebecca N. USA CPT USA OSJA TDS; Parrish, Patrick J COL MIL USA FORSCOM Subject: RE: US v. Jenkins: Request for Clarification of Court Rules MAJ Dubbeling: Please provide the court with the defense written request for delay for the period 11 Mar - 9 May. The case is set for 15 June at Fort Bragg. Motions by either side are due NLT 1 Jun and responses are due NLT 8 Jun. Defense will provide notice of forum/plea NLT 1 Jun. COL Parrish -----Original Message----- From: Dubbeling, Paul M. MAJ USA (82D SBDE, SJA) [mailto:paul.dubbeling@afghan.swa.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:12 AM To: Parrish, Patrick J COL MIL USA FORSCOM; McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial Counsel) Cc: Craver, Stacy L Ms CIV USA FORSCOM; Guillen, Robert A CPT MIL USA USA USARCENT 1st TSC; Dimuro, Rebecca N. USA CPT USA OSJA TDS Subject: RE: US v. Jenkins: Request for Clarification of Court Rules Sir, CPT McCarthy is on leave and I will be responsible for the Government's communication with the Court pending potential assignment of Government counsel at Fort Bragg. The Government and Defense agree that the period 11 March to 9 May (59 days) is attributable to the Defense pursuant to a Defense request for continuance. Excluding that period of delay, the Government calculates that the 120-day speedy trial clock will expire on 31 July absent any other continuance granted pursuant to RCM 707(c). 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: Parrish, Patrick J COL MIL USA FORSCOM [mailto:patrick.parrish@us.army.mil] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:57 PM To: McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial Counsel); Dubbeling, Paul M. MAJ USA (82D SBDE, SJA) Cc: Craver, Stacy L Ms CIV USA FORSCOM; Guillen, Robert A CPT MIL USA USA USARCENT 1st TSC; Dimuro, Rebecca N. USA CPT USA OSJA TDS Subject: RE: US v. Jenkins: Request for Clarification of Court Rules CPT McCarthy: Does this mean this all the time until 15 June is accountable to the government? COL Parrish -----Original Message----- From: McCarthy, Amy H. CPT USA (82nd SB - Trial Counsel) [mailto:amy.mccarthy@afghan.swa.army.mil] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 12:47 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
Attachment:
Docketing Request US v. Jenkins.pdf
Description: Docketing Request US v. Jenkins.pdf