RE: Update on UCI Motion

[Haytham Faraj <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>]

The entire thing is an effective assistance argument.  He incorporated
Gannon's FOF because he didn't like our challenge of his ruling.  Bad
Defense Lawyers! J Either way, I'll be ready.

 

From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:50 PM
To: Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith
Cc: Trujillo Radar
Subject: Re: Update on UCI Motion

 

Just finished reading the findings.  I think Gannon wrote it for him.
Completely missed the point.  I'll bet he gets reversed.

Neal A. Puckett, Esq

LtCol, USMC (Ret)

Puckett & Faraj, PC

1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210

Alexandria, VA 22314

703.706.9566

www.puckettfaraj.com 

 

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is
intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not
the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any
use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify
Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 888-970-0005 or via a return the e-mail to sender.
You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making
any copy or distribution.

 

On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Haytham Faraj wrote:

 

Your honor,
In light of your email, I feel it necessary to clear up some
misunderstandings.  When I appeared in 39a's for both Vega and Brito, I
informed the trial judges that Wuterich was scheduled for Nov 2.  I think
one of those cases was already scheduled for that period anyway.  As you
recall Wuterich was supposed to go in September so November was open to
schedule cases.  The trial judges were also aware of our Hutchins motions in
October.  They, therefore, placed the cases on the docket with the
understanding that those cases would be moved if Wuterich went as scheduled.
In response to inquiries regarding my availability next week, trial counsel
in those cases have been informed that those cases would have to be moved
because Wuterich takes precedence.  I didn't schedule those cases.  I merely
agreed with the military judge's recommendation that the cases be double
docketed in the remote possibility that Wuterich moves.    

Vr,
Haytham Faraj

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones LtCol David M [mailto:david.m.jones5@usmc.mil] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:46 PM
To: Gannon Maj Nicholas L; Haytham Faraj
Cc: Neal Puckett; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R; Rubin
LtCol Peter R
Subject: RE: Update on UCI Motion

Counsel,

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not official until they are read
into the record of trial, and can further be added to / changed at any time
prior to authentication for accuracy.  However, for your planning purposes,
and in light of the Stay filed by the defense, I am attaching a "rough" of
my ruling for your assistance.  I anticipate going to trial next Tuesday,
the 2nd of November.  I expect all parties to be there unless the Stay that
has been granted. 

Major Gannon, please set up an 802 for this case for.  I understand from
Judge Rubin that Mr. Faraj has scheduled Brito and Vega to go next week.  I
would like to know why.

R,  

LtCol David M. Jones
Military Judge
Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Office: 645-7287 / 2156
Fax: 645-2035