Friday, April 29, 2011

Problems with Army Records of Trial

First it was Gaskins, in which CAAF last week ordered the government to show cause why CAAF shouldn't bar a sentence rehearing in a carnal knowledge case in which the exhibit containing all Gaskins' "good" paperwork for sentencing was lost.  Now, CAAF is dealing with a case in which part of a record of trial never got authenticated:

No. 11-0391/AR. U.S. v. Steven K. SHAFER. CCA 20090650. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that there is no evidence of the authenticity of pages 1 - 102 of the record of trial. “Neither this Court nor the court below may review and act on such a record.” United States v. Vasquez, 44 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (summary disposition). Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following specified issue:



WHETHER A PROPER REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ, HAS BEEN CONDUCTED WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF PAGES 1 - 102 OF THE RECORD OF TRIAL AS RQUIRED BY ARTICLE 54(a), UCMJ.

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to that court for further review.