<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for A &quot;hmmmm&quot; regarding Lieutenant Watada.</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:43:42 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>A &quot;hmmmm&quot; regarding Lieutenant Watada.</title>
            <description>In a comment to the Watada, con&apos;t post, Hawk observes: The UCMJ statute on “Former Jeopardy” “844. ART. 44. FORMER JEOPARDY (a) No person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense. (b) No proceeding in which the accused has been found guilty by court- martial upon any charge or specification is a trial in the sense of this article until the finding of guilty has become final after review of the case has been fully completed. (c) A proceeding which, after the introduction of evidence but before a finding, is dismissed or terminated by...</description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:02:43 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-02-11</title>
            <description>
                Fark! [shakes foot vigorously]

Tell him!  Tell him!
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56493</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56493</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:58:12 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from ry on 2007-02-11</title>
            <description>
                Okay, but just what does manifest necessity mean?  Give us a ballpark or simple example.  Please?  Or I&apos;ll ankle bite John.

            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56489</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56489</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:36:02 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-02-11</title>
            <description>
                See?  This is why commanders have JAGs.

I don&apos;t have a JAG, but I know a guy who plays one on a blog (and probably stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, too).

Thanks for dropping by, AL.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56483</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56483</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:17:41 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Army Lawyer on 2007-02-11</title>
            <description>
                As I understand the facts, the Gov&apos;t asked for a mistrial after the disagreement over the stipulation of fact.  The defense wanted to go to trial.  Judge granted the mistrial anyway.

RCM 915 lays out the standard for granting a mistrial when it&apos;s &quot;manifestly necessary.&quot;

United States v. Ghent, 21 M.J. 546 lays out pretty well the interplay between mistrials over defense objection and double jeopardy.  Basically, Gov&apos;t has to prove a mistrial was of manifest necessity to avoid DJ issues.


            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56479</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56479</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:02:53 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2007-02-11</title>
            <description>
                &quot;dismissed or terminated by the convening authority or motion of the prosecution for failure of available evidence or witnesses without any fault of the accused&quot;

1-trial was not terminated by the convening authority, I Corps CG LTG Dubik, but by the presiding magistrate

2-likewise, it was not terminated by the prosecution for failure of evidence through no fault of the accused, but, to my understanding, by the magistrate because of what was, IMHO, a failure by the accused counsel, in that said counsel allowed the accused to sign something that, in the magistrate&apos;s eyes at least, was an admission of guilt.

I&apos;m not lawyer, but that&apos;s how I read it.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56477</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56477</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:51:29 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Grumpy on 2007-02-11</title>
            <description>
                John, I think you have made a VERY WISE choice.  There is a whole bunch of history here. I also think we are all looking for a black or white answer with no gradients at all. I truly believe we will find the actual truth will be all gradients of grey. As you can well see, I am NO ATTORNEY! I believe even the attorneys and historians will cut this issue a wide berth.

Respectfully,
Grumpy
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56476</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/a_hmmmm_regardi.html#comment-56476</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:35:26 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


