thedrifter
11-14-06, 08:14 AM
November 13, 2006
Services’ lawyers reject centralized docket idea
By Kelly Kennedy
Staff writer
A request for records to create a centralized docket of upcoming courts-martial and Article-32 cases for all military services hit a hurdle Monday when the Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy refused to comply.
“It’s not like the information is not available,” said Army spokesman Sheldon Smith. “But if we provide it to this private entity, we’d have to provide it to everyone.”
However, according to Kathleen Duignan, executive director of the National Institute of Military Justice, that’s the point: The information is public record and should be available to everyone.
The case started when Duignan and NIMJ President Eugene Fidell, who both represent military personnel in courts-martial cases, heard complaints from lawyers and the media that they were not getting the docket of cases. Usually, a reporter — or anyone else who is interested — must call a public affairs officer at each individual post or base and ask for the docket information. It is legally required that that information be posted in a public space, but that can mean a courtroom door – and that’s only accessible to those allowed on post.
Sometimes, reporters easily obtain the information. Other times, they don’t hear about a case until after it has been prosecuted. And sometimes, they don’t hear about a case at all. Reporters are allowed access to courts-martial cases in part to make sure service members get a fair trial. Lawyers pay attention to cases to watch for trends – good and bad – and to make sure cases are properly adjudicated.
To that end, Duignan is creating a Web site that would list all of the courts-martial and Article-32 cases. The docket would not include personal information, only names and the charges. That information would be available to anyone who wanted it for free on the new Web site. NIMJ, a non-profit, would host the site as well as post the information.
“We intend to go ahead with the project,” Duignan said, “even if that means calling each post or base individually.”
The Coast Guard legal team immediately wrote back and said it would comply with the request.
The commanding generals of the judge advocate corps of the other four branches jointly signed a letter denying the request:
“Commanders have the task of striking a fair balance among competing concerns: the protection of individuals accused of offenses, improper publicity concerning their cases, discipline in the military, and the need for transparency and the military justice system. Striking this necessary and delicate balance requires the sound judgment by the commanders responsible for both administering military justice and providing information to the public and the media, guided by his or her service’s governing regulations.”
Duignan said she expected to receive a form letter saying her request would require too much work, but not a letter arguing against providing information she contends should be made available.
“It’s just public information,” she said. “I wasn’t asking for investigative reports. We’re not selling it – we’re making it available.”
Duignan said NIMJ board members would meet to determine the next step.
Ellie
Services’ lawyers reject centralized docket idea
By Kelly Kennedy
Staff writer
A request for records to create a centralized docket of upcoming courts-martial and Article-32 cases for all military services hit a hurdle Monday when the Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy refused to comply.
“It’s not like the information is not available,” said Army spokesman Sheldon Smith. “But if we provide it to this private entity, we’d have to provide it to everyone.”
However, according to Kathleen Duignan, executive director of the National Institute of Military Justice, that’s the point: The information is public record and should be available to everyone.
The case started when Duignan and NIMJ President Eugene Fidell, who both represent military personnel in courts-martial cases, heard complaints from lawyers and the media that they were not getting the docket of cases. Usually, a reporter — or anyone else who is interested — must call a public affairs officer at each individual post or base and ask for the docket information. It is legally required that that information be posted in a public space, but that can mean a courtroom door – and that’s only accessible to those allowed on post.
Sometimes, reporters easily obtain the information. Other times, they don’t hear about a case until after it has been prosecuted. And sometimes, they don’t hear about a case at all. Reporters are allowed access to courts-martial cases in part to make sure service members get a fair trial. Lawyers pay attention to cases to watch for trends – good and bad – and to make sure cases are properly adjudicated.
To that end, Duignan is creating a Web site that would list all of the courts-martial and Article-32 cases. The docket would not include personal information, only names and the charges. That information would be available to anyone who wanted it for free on the new Web site. NIMJ, a non-profit, would host the site as well as post the information.
“We intend to go ahead with the project,” Duignan said, “even if that means calling each post or base individually.”
The Coast Guard legal team immediately wrote back and said it would comply with the request.
The commanding generals of the judge advocate corps of the other four branches jointly signed a letter denying the request:
“Commanders have the task of striking a fair balance among competing concerns: the protection of individuals accused of offenses, improper publicity concerning their cases, discipline in the military, and the need for transparency and the military justice system. Striking this necessary and delicate balance requires the sound judgment by the commanders responsible for both administering military justice and providing information to the public and the media, guided by his or her service’s governing regulations.”
Duignan said she expected to receive a form letter saying her request would require too much work, but not a letter arguing against providing information she contends should be made available.
“It’s just public information,” she said. “I wasn’t asking for investigative reports. We’re not selling it – we’re making it available.”
Duignan said NIMJ board members would meet to determine the next step.
Ellie