November 4, 2008
The Carpenter Law Firm P.C.
Seattle Court-Martial Lawyer Available for Worldwide Defense
Proven and Experienced Military Defense
If you are currently facing military criminal charges or administrative separation, you need the assistance of an experienced military lawyer with a a proven track record who is familiar with the UCMJ and the military justice system. Your hard earned military career now deserves the best Information and professional guidance available.
“There is not a more dedicated Trial Defense Attorney advocate or litigator in Europe, his skills, friendship and mentorship to young advocates will be sorely missed.” PCS Award
Mr. Carpenter will handle your case with expertise, commitment and passion. He is available to consult with you in Washington State, the Western United States, Europe and the Far East.
Available for consultation at your local Trial Defense Service (TDS) Office on military posts, installations and bases worldwide.
phone: +1 206 326 0803
Earlier this summer an U.S. Army Judge ruled that statements made by an alleged sexual assault victim to her victim advocate were discoverable on account of AR 600-20 provisions related to “unrestricted” complaints. Simply stated, in his learned view an “unrestricted” filing is akin to a waiver of any associated “victim advocate” privilege. Government prosecutors filed an appeal to preclude this discovery IAW MRE 514 (d)(6). On 11 June 2015, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) in Lippert, Powell est. 2015 CCA LEXIS 257 upheld the military judge’s ruling. The valuable lesson is this, if the complaining victim consults with a victim advocate, after having filed a “unrestricted report” the defense should now aggressively seek any and all related discovery regarding those previously “off limits” conversations.
The Navy appellate court recently issued a favorable defense ruling in United States v. DWB, 74 MJ 630 (2015) in which the court upheld the military judge’s decision to prevent an alleged victim from putting on mental health testimony regarding Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) procedures. Military Defense Lawyers now have a great case to rely upon to pierce the MRE 513 privilege so long as one can reasonably show that the complaining witness underwent EMDR related treatments to assist in memory recall.
November 18, 2012
In a landmark opinion, the military’s highest court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), in United States v. Ali, 71 M.J. 256 (2012) held that non-United States citizens that “serve with” a U.S. military forces overseas are subject to trial by court-martial. In principle, CAAF’s opinion opens a potential means for the United States military apparatus to hold noncitizens accountable for committing crimes. In essence, CAAF held U.S. Constitutional protections, embodied in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments inapplicable to this body of persons. This case will no doubt be subjected to further judicial review, and may likely be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, however, for now, the long arm jurisdiction of American military justice has caste itself around the globe, albeit only where our forces serve.
April 1, 2012
The Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) recently decided United States v. Morrissette, 70 MJ 431 (2012), which provides interesting insights into the dangers associated with grants of immunity. Simply stated, this case concerned an accused that was involved in the death of a Soldier; who was undergoing, at that time, a brutal initiation into the gang. The Government provided the accused “testimonial immunity” IAW RCM 704(a)(2). As a result, the accused had no choice but to make a statement to CID. In fact, he made four more written statements. The Government then withdrew the immunity and proceeded with the court-martial of the accused. CAAF held the follow-on prosecution was not unlawful because the Government did not benefit from the information learned from the previous immunized statements. Indeed, a second set of prosecutors, who were precluded from learning anything about the accused’s four statements, tried him. CAAF held the conviction lawful. Notably, CAAF did not care that a former member of the first prosecution team tangentially discussed the case, via email, with the second prosecution team’s staff judge advocate. The lesson to learn is to conduct vigorous discovery of “email” information when looking to pierce the “Chinese wall” to show your client is worse off as a direct result of the forced immunity arrangement.
October 9, 2011
U.S. v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169 (2011) has dramatically changed the landscape of potential relief associated with significant pretrial punishment. Airman Zarbatany received 595 days of pretrial confinement credit as a result of a military judge’s ruling he was illegally punished prior to his court-martial. The trial court highlighted several disturbing facts, in part, “appellant was in pretrial confinement at ACC for 119 days in virtual lock-down status; 2) he was confined to his cell for an average of 23 hours a day; 3) he was allowed out of his cell only to shower; 4) he could only meet with his wife over a television monitor; 5) his recreation area was about the size of his cell; 6) he was typically denied the right to talk to fellow inmates; 7) he shared his cell with post-trial inmates; and 8) without cause he was locked in the shower room, about 8 times, for about 30 minutes a session. Now, at trial, Zarbatany was sentenced to serve 6 months in confinement, which was far less than the Art. 13 award of 595 days; in fact, he had “415 days of excess confinement credit.” The appellate court, in a remarkably gracious move held the sentence “disproportionate” and told the Government to effectively disapprove the bad conduct discharge.
July 31, 2011
Accused was convicted at a general court-martial for making a false official statement. As a result, a military panel sentenced him to a bad-conduct discharge (BCD), forfeiture of pay for one month, and reduction to E-1. On appellate review, however, United States v. Marsh, 70 M.J. 101 (2011) reversed the sentence because the prosecutor inappropriately inflamed the panel by arguing, during the pre-sentencing proceeding, “You can’t trust the accused. The accused is an aircraft mechanic, someone you trust to work on your airplanes, to tighten that bolt, to make sure that those aircraft are worthy to fly, to do rescue missions, to serve this Army. Can you trust someone who lies with the lives of those pilots?” In addressing the sacrosanct rule against using present tense personal pronouns, the appellate court extended its temporal reach by citing Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2005) for the proposition that court members can never be asked “to place themselves in the shoes of [potential] future victims”, as well. Notably, military defense counsel did not object to the improper argument. If he had, the court members might have received a curative limiting instruction that would have cleansed the prejudicial comment.
The Military Appellate Court in United States v. Girouard, 70 M.J. 5 (2011), reversed a negligent homicide conviction finding “negligent homicide is not a LIO of premeditated murder.” The Court focused on the terminal (art 134) element as lacking in the premeditated murder charge, and thus set aside the conviction because the defense was not on notice of said element which demands a showing of prejudice to good order and discipline or like service discrediting conduct.