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

RE: US v. Capt Rowe



Hi Russ,
I do remember you.  I just called your office.  Col baker answered.  I am 
attaching a few documents for you to peruse.  I have some appointments this 
morning but should be free to talk around 1430 this afternoon.  Please call 
me at my cell phone.  760-521-7934.

Vr,

-----Original Message-----
From: Shinn Capt Scott R [mailto:scott.shinn@usmc.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 8:48 AM
To: haytham@puckettfaraj.com
Subject: US v. Capt Rowe

Haytham,
  I'm not sure if you remember me or not, but we met at the Mess Night at 
the CDC Conference in Miramar.  I've been detailed as the military counsel 
for Capt Rowe by Col Baker.  As the case is rapidly approaching trial, I'd 
like to discuss the case with you very soon.  As of right now, I only have 
the most recent charge sheet.  The case file should get delivered to me 
tomorrow.  Maj McConnell has given me an overview of the case, but I don't 
have many of the details.

  Whenever you are able to discuss the case, I'm available.

V/r,

S. Russell Shinn
Captain, US Marine Corps

Officer-in-Charge
Defense Counsel Assistance Program
Marine Corps Defense Services Organization

703.614.0885 (w)
703.470.0671 (c)

"Marines Defending Marines"

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.  The 
information contained in or attached to this communication is confidential, 
legally privileged and intended for use only by the individual or entity to 
which it is transmitted.  Any other use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited.  Do not disseminate without the approval of the OIC, DCAP. This 
e-mail and all other electronic or voice communication from this address are 
for informational purposes only.  No such communication is intended by the 
sender or the agency to constitute either an electronic record, or an 
electronic signature, or to constitute any agreement by the sender to 
conduct a transaction by electronic means.  If you receive this e-mail in 
error, please permanently delete the original and any other copies or 
printouts of this e-mail, and notify me immediately at the above e-mail 
address or phone number.  To the extent the information contained in or 
attached to this communication contains Privacy Act information, that 
information is for OFFICIAL USE ONLY.



-----Original Message-----
From: Baker Col John
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 17:11
To: Shinn Capt Scott R
Subject: FW: US v. Rowe Telephonic 802

Russ,

	I'm detailing you to this case - you'll see a detailing letter shortly. 
Haytham Faraj is the lead counsel.  Trial dates are at the bottom of this 
e-mail.

S/F,

Col Baker


----- Original Message -----
From: Baker Col John
To: Greer LtCol Christopher M; Riley Col Donald J Jr.
Cc: Jasper Maj Thomas F
Sent: Mon Nov 07 12:38:29 2011
Subject: RE: US v. Rowe Telephonic 802

Chris,

I understand your frustration.   This latest, last minute unexpected 
development frustrated me as well and has highlighted some significant gaps 
in communications within the DSO that we are addressing and correcting. 
While not ideal, we've come up with a local solution to avoid further delay 
and at no additional cost - upon receipt of a release letter from Capt Rowe, 
I will detail the case to Capt Shinn, who just checked into my office.

Here's how we got here:

Friday, I learned that Capt Rowe had requested under RCM 505(d)(2)(B)(ii), 
RCM 506(c) and Rule of Prof Conduct 1.16 ("A client has a right to discharge 
a covered attorney with or without cause.") that Maj McConnell be excused as 
his detailed defense counsel and a new counsel be detailed.  I discussed the 
issue with his civilian counsel late Friday afternoon and Tom Jasper 
confirmed things with Capt Rowe yesterday.  Apparently the MJ approved the 
release this morning.  For what it's worth, after what I learned Friday, I 
was prepared under the unique sets of facts of this case, which includes 
information covered by MRE 502 that I am not a liberty to disclose, to find 
good cause to sever the A/C under RCM 505(d)(2)(B)(ii) and I'm confident 
that if called to rule on the issue at an Art 39a session, an MJ would have 
severed the relationship under RCM 506(c).

To address your larger concern -- in general, I agree and for a variety of 
reasons, I don't see this fact pattern repeating itself in the future.  CDC 
Policy Memo 7-11 dated 8 Oct 11 contains a specific prohibition against an 
SDC who writes fit reps on subordinate DCs from detailing themselves to 
represent clients who have a conflict of interest with a client of a 
subordinate defense counsel for whom the SDC is the reporting senior.  The 
policy memo also clearly explains to counsel that providing certain types of 
advice, such as IRO advice, admin process advice, and Art 31 advice does not 
form an attorney-client relationship.

Any failings in the delivery of defense counsel services here are mine --  
we've learned some important lessons at a relatively low cost (two week 
delay), that in the end will improve the business practices of the DSO.


Semper Fi,

Colonel John G. Baker, U. S. Marine Corps Chief Defense Counsel of the 
Marine Corps Marine Corps Defense Services Organization
      "Marines Defending Marines"

Office: (703) 614-0885; Cell: (703) 944-2580

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.  The 
information contained in or attached to this communication is confidential, 
legally privileged and intended for use only by the individual or entity to 
which it is transmitted.  Any other use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited.  Do not disseminate without the approval of the Chief Defense 
Counsel of the Marine Corps. This e-mail and all other electronic or voice 
communication from this address are for informational purposes only.  No 
such communication is intended by the sender or the agency to constitute 
either an electronic record, or an electronic signature, or to constitute 
any agreement by the sender to conduct a transaction by electronic means. 
If you receive this e-mail in error, please permanently delete the original 
and any other copies or printouts of this e-mail, and notify me immediately 
at the above e-mail address or phone number.  To the extent the information 
contained in or attached to this communication contains Privacy Act 
information, that information is for OFFICIAL USE ONLY.


-----Original Message-----
From: Greer LtCol Christopher M [mailto:christopher.m.greer@usmc.mil]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 10:28
To: Riley Col Donald J Jr.; Baker Col John
Subject: FW: US v. Rowe Telephonic 802

Gentlemen,

The idea that an conflict exists because a subordinate DC in the defense 
shop consulted with a witness in a case where the SDC is detailed is going 
to take us to a place where we do not want to go.  Soon, each office will 
need to farm out any case where any DC has talked to anyone remotely 
involved in a case.  Capt White provided advice to Lt Klay regarding her 
resignation.  I fil to see how a conflict now exists in this case.  Maj 
McConnel has no interest that is adverse to Capt White.  What am I missing 
here?

LtCol Greer
MCBQ SJA


-----Original Message-----
From: Combe Capt Peter C
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 10:12
To: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Mcconnell Major Matthew N
Cc: jeffrey.hoey@navy.mil; Hale LtCol Charles C; Hoover Maj Christopher M; 
Owsley SSgt Jason L
Subject: US v. Rowe Telephonic 802

Good morning Gentlemen,

This morning counsel had a telephonic 802 with LtCol Hale.  In this 802 we 
discussed the following:

1.  Due to developing case law with regard to conflicts of interest, it has 
become apparent that Maj McConnell, the detailed defense counsel, has a 
conflict of interest.  Based on that conflict, the accused has released Maj 
McConnell, and he will be replaced by a new detailed defense counsel.

2.  This conflict and release of counsel has lead to the defense requesting 
a continuance until the week of 28 November.  The military judge indicated 
that due to the detailing of new counsel he is granting the defense 
continuance request and we will begin trial at 1300 on 28 November.

3.  This new trial date necessitates the following trial milestones:
	- 11 Nov 2011, motions due.
	- 16 Nov 2011 (1200), motion responses due.
	- Pretrial 39a is scheduled for 18 November.  No specific time was set, but 
the defense indicated a preference for the morning.

Very Respectfully,
Peter C. Combe II
Capt, U.S. Marine Corps
Trial Counsel

Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
Military Justice Office
Marine Corps Base Quantico
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134

Comm: (703) 784-0037  DSN: 278
Fax: (703) 784-0035  DSN: 278

NOTICE:  This electronic transmission contains privacy sensitive 
information, attorney work-product or information protected under the 
attorney-client privilege.  It is confidential, legally privileged and 
intended for use only by the individual or entity which is entitled to 
receive this transmission for official use only.  Any misuse or unauthorized 
access is strictly prohibited and may result in both civil and criminal 
penalties.  Do not release this information without prior authorization from 
the sender.  If this has inadvertently reached the wrong party, please 
delete all materials pertaining to it immediately and notify the sender at 
the email address or phone number above.  This electronic transmission is 
also not intended by the sender or the agency to constitute either an 
electronic record, or an electronic signature, or to constitute any 
agreement by the sender to conduct a transaction by electronic means.


Attachment: Klay E-mails r; LtCol Hudspeth Investigation.PDF
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: Lt Klay e-mail to LtCol Hudspeth about supposed threats from Capt Rowe.PDF
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: LtCol Hudspeth Invest rebuttal from Klay.PDF
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: Statement from Klay 18 Aug 10 Re; Assault Allegations.PDF
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: Statements from Klay NCIS 5 Oct 10.PDF
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: Rowe Additional referred.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: ROWE_CHARGE_SHEET.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: Owens sworn statement.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: Witness list-Rowe.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: Witness request Nov 11.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: KLay transcript part II.PDF
Description: Adobe PDF document