Law Commons^™

Reforming Military Justice: An Analysis Of The Military Justice Act Of 2016, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

The 2016 amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”) amounted to a sea change in American military justice. The Military Justice Act of 2016—a major reform of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—is set out in Division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, and was signed into law by the President on December 23, 2016. Most of the amendments to the UCMJ addressed in this article will not become effective for some time—perhaps not until January 1, 2019 and in the interim, the current provisions of the UCMJ will continue to apply. Overall, …

The Military Justice Conundrum: Justice Or Discipline?, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article focuses on the long-standing debate over the purpose and functions of the American military justice system and whether the system is intended to provide for good order and discipline or to provide justice. The author provides a summary of the current procedures and practices in that legal system and discusses the roles of commanders and armed forces attorneys. He addresses the various thematic approaches which have been used to describe the relationship between justice and discipline and applies a crime-control and due process model to various features of the military justice system. He concludes that the system was …

Federal Rules Update: How Rules Are Made: A Brief Review, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

A number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence became effective on December 1, 2009. The change to Criminal Rule 7 deleted subdivision (c)(2), which required that the indictment include notice that the defendant has an interest in forfeitable property. Criminal Rule 32 now provides that the presentence report state whether the government is seeking forfeiture of property. Criminal Rule 32.2 received six amendments concerning criminal forfeiture. Criminal Rule 41 created a two-step process for seizing and reviewing electronic storage media. Further, of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings, Rule 11 was created to make the requirements …

Federal Rules Update: Technology-Related Rules, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

In June 2009, the Standing Committee on the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence authorized publication for comment on a number of technology-related rules of criminal procedure. Criminal Rule 1 would state that the terms “telephone,” “telephonic,” or “telephonically” mean any form or live electronic voice communication. Rule 3 would allow officers to submit a complaint and supporting material electronically. Changes to Rule 4 would address electronically processed and submitted arrest warrants. Proposed new Rule 4.1 would permit magistrate judges to consider information presented electronically in deciding whether to issue a warrant or summons or approve a complaint. The amendment …

Criminal Rules Amendments Effective As Of December 2007, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

A number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence became effective on December 1, 2007. Criminal Rule 11 was amended to conform the rule to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, which held that the sections in the federal sentencing statute that made pleas mandatory violated the fifth and sixth constitutional amendments. Criminal Rule 32 was made to conform to United States v. Booker by making it clear that the court may require the probation office to include in the presentence report information relevant to factors set out in 18 U.S.C § 3553(a). The …

Federal Rules Update: How Rules Are Made: A Brief Review, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

In June 2007, the Standing Committee on the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence authorized publication for comment on a number amendments to the rules of criminal procedure. The amendment to Criminal Rule 7 would delete subdivision (c)(2) because it is covered in Rule 32.2(a). The change to Criminal Rule 32 would provide that the presentence report should state whether the government is seeking forfeiture of property. Amendments to Criminal Rule 32.2. would change a number of procedures related to criminal forfeiture. Criminal Rule 41 would create a two-step process for seizing and reviewing electronic storage media. Amendments to the …

A Call For Comment: Restyling And Amending The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

In August 2000, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure published—for public comment—proposed amendments to the entire set of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposals mark the culmination of a two-year project to “restyle” the rules—to modernize and reorganize and to make them internally consistent in format and style. Not since the rules were first promulgated in 1946 has there been such a significant change in the structure, format, and substance. This article first addresses the rule-making process for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and then examines the restyling process. Finally, it notes several of …

Time Changes: Growing Complexity In Texas Sentencing Law, John M. Schmolesky

Faculty Articles

The Seventieth Legislature made criminal sentencing guidelines more onerous, but a number of factors combined to undercut its impact. These changes made the relationships between the legislative, judicial, and administrative components of the criminal justice system become increasingly complex, often resulting in one agency undercutting the decisions of another. Because of the complex web of agencies that have a role in determining the disposition of a convicted defendant, changes in the rules of sentencing must be analyzed at several different levels to determine their true impact.

Despite the apparently more punitive thrust of the new legislation, no clear policy direction …