military – Conduct Unbecoming

088 US v. Woods

I think I’ve mentioned before that on base housing is a bit of a trip. It’s not an environment in which I thrive. As someone who is perhaps overly critical of the details, I can find a lot of things to complain about. So, to balance my hot take on on-base living, I would like to offer some observations of what people do really well: when the plague hit, we had no grocery delivery services. We took it upon ourselves to care for our neighbors and to make sure that they had the supplies they needed. When we needed a dog sitter we could trust, our upstairs neighbor helped us with the best solution for us and for their teenager that missed having their own pup. And, if you screamed bloody murder because one of the banana spiders infiltrated your home and you walked into a web face first, someone would come running.

Maybe people on base are a little nosier or just a little more comfortable getting involved. Whatever motivated the on-base community to contact Chief Petty Officer Woods’s chain of command, doing so may have saved his wife’s life.

I relied on the CGCCA opinion and the Military Rules of Evidence.

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

Thank you for listening! If you enjoyed this episode, please take a moment to share, rate and review it wherever you hit play today. I’m happy to receive constructive feedback or case suggestions at conductunbecomingpod@gmail.com. Join me over on Instagram @conductunbecoming!

Disclaimer: Conduct Unbecoming is a podcast where I get to talk about interesting crimes and cases that involve US military service members. I research, write, and produce the podcast myself… the opinions expressed are my own and, perhaps it’s obvious, Conduct Unbecoming is not approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Department of Defense or whatever name they go by socially now. I am not a military JAG and have never been a military JAG. While I’m a practicing attorney, I don’t do direct criminal defense. This podcast is a passion project, not legal advice or expert opinion.

087 US v. Charlie Company

I don’t have a relevant life story that can transition us into the introduction of the facts of this case. The bald truth is that I’m sharing this case because I fear that history may repeat itself. While the Army learned valuable lesson–like the need for operational lawyers to advise commands–from the My Lai massacre, it did so reluctantly, slowly, and without public support.

I referenced an opinion from the CMA, as well as information from CharlieCompany.org, War History Online, NPR, the Guardian, International Crimes Database, Pulitzer, the University of Virginia, Britannica, Army History, and PBS.

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

086 US v. Bales

There are lots of lawyers in the DOD that operate beyond the courtroom and litigation. Relevant to today’s episode are lawyers providing operational support. They work on issues involving treaty compliance, the law of war, detainee operations, rules of engagement, the law of the sea, and non-lethal force and weapons. They have other tasks, but those are probably the ones that mean the most to what we’re looking at for a few episodes.

When the subject of today’s episode slipped away from his post and took the lives of local civilians, he almost certainly violated the ops law guidance, rules of engagement, and law of war.

I relied on opinions, petitions, and orders from the ACCA, CAAF, SCOTUS, District Court of Kansas, and Tenth Circuit.

I also referenced information from The Air Force Times, NPR, the University of Chicago, American University, the Department of Defense (Press Conference Transcript and Legacy Article), Military.com, a description of operational law, and the text of the Military Commissions Act.

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

085 US v. Sinclair

This podcast usually focuses on successful prosecutions and the resulting appeals. But what about the cases that start strong and then lose steam? We don’t really spend time there because I hadn’t sussed out the through line, the thing that would make them relevant to a broader discussion. But, for this episode I’ve plucked two cases that I don’t think we would generally describe as successful prosecutions. I chose them because they highlight the ways that outside circumstances influence a system of justice and, in some respects, the way that case outcomes can influence outside circumstances.

Before we dive into those cases, I want to set the scene for why I’m highlighting that at all. I’m aware there are reviews for this podcast that suggest I stay away from political stuff. They’ve been around for over a year but I’ve declined to address them until now. I think I found a way to make the reason we dance across the politics of it all clearer for everyone involved.

There are no opinions currently associated with the cases I discussed in this episode. Instead, I relied on news coverage of the Sinclair case and related cases:

Sinclair: New York Times, NBC (1)(2), NPR, a press release from a Congressional Representative, and PBS.
Naval Academy Case: BBC, ESPN(1)(2)

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

084 US v. Prescott

With the explosion of recording glasses, this seems like the right time to tackle the issue at the heart of today’s episode. Covert filming (whether that’s filming in public places or filming in private spaces) got a lot easier when cameras got smaller. What was once the stuff of spy thrillers is now being sold at retailers for a few hundred dollars. I recognize that there are blinking lights to indicate that someone’s recording, but I’m not confident that’ll help in spaces like locker rooms or anywhere where you might be more than a few feet away from the glasses.

Of course, the issue of hidden cameras predates the miniaturization that enabled camera glasses, and hidden cameras have prompted an entire genre of social media consisting of people searching hotels and other spaces for hidden cameras. To go even more retro, there are a series of civil cases addressing hotel liability when two way mirrors are discovered that allow peeping toms to peer into bedrooms while guests get their freak on. But today’s case takes us out of the bedroom and into the bathroom.

There are no opinions currently associated with the cases I discussed in this episode. Instead, I relied on news coverage of the Prescott and McClendon cases.

Prescott: Stripes (1)(2), WAAY TV, Army.mil’s broken link, Wiregrass Daily News.
McClendon: New York Times, NBC News, Arkansas Online, questionable comments from a law firm, My NBC 5, Newsday, ABC Chicago, and the digest for CAAF (1)(2).

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

083 US v. Moore, et al.

Is it a universally millennial experience, learning to set boundaries? I still have a lot to learn about the details of boundary setting, but I think people exposed to the law might have a bit of a leg up. We’ve seen the power of a clear, bright line rule such as, “people born in the United States are citizens by right of their birth.” We’ve also seen the dangers of an unclear rule, like, “jurisdiction over a business is anywhere where they might be considered at home.” That sparks a lot of follow up questions.

This episode dives into the kind of clarification that unclear controlling precedent necessitated. I’ll leave you to decide whether you think the rule is good, bad, or unclear.

This episode involved discussion of sexual assault. There are a number of resources available for survivors and victim of sexual assault, including the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). They offer a free, confidential national sexual assault hotline at 800-656-HOPE as well as an online chat option. The victims of the assault were children. If you suspect child abuse, please call the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline at 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453) or go to www.childhelp.org. All calls are toll free and confidential. The hotline is available 24/7 in more than 170 languages.

I relied on a series of briefs and opinions for each accused in writing this episode:

Moore: CAAF opinion, AFCCA opinion
Hennessy: CAAF opinion, AFCCA opinion, brief, motion for reconsideration
Serjak: CAAF opinion, AFCCA opinion, government brief, Serjak’s brief

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

082 US v. Adams

When I lived in the southern United States after college, people told me my dating options would be limited. I was 22 years old and, apparently, a spinster, so they cautioned that my dating market would probably be people who’d married young and were winding their way through divorce. I wasn’t particularly interested in being a stepmother and, ultimately, didn’t seriously date while I was living there. From colleagues and friends, though, I gathered how difficult it was to date as a parent. I listened as women agonized over whether their child was old enough to meet their new beau, whether they’d been dating long enough, whether there were any red flags they might have missed. It was an exercise in exhaustion and concern–a leap of faith.

In the case of Sergeant Adams and his wife, it was a leap of faith that did not work out. There’s nothing to suggest Mrs. Adams missed something, but everything to suggest that Sergeant Adams really sucked.

I relied on a series of briefs and opinions dating back over the length of this case. I think the easiest way to share them is in chronological order:

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

081 US v. Foster

When your spouse deploys, there are a lot of new fun things to worry about and a rush of plans to get into place. Your best bet is to get a power of attorney for the things that matter, and some people elect to move back to their home towns during deployments, eager to return to a sense of comfort and community. It’s a challenging time where the burden of running a life and house shift to just one person and, frankly, trigger survival mode.

For one woman, deployment survival strategy expanded from the woes and worries of running their lives to include literal survival.

This episode briefly mentions dying by suicide. If you are experiencing thoughts of self-harm, I urge you to contact the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by dialing 988. Help is also available via chat on their website. For support specific to veterans, first dial 988, then selecting option 1. They also have veteran-specific chat support.

In preparing for this episode, I reviewed the Fifth Circuit Opinion and articles from KDHN , Fort Hood Sentinel, and Army Times, an FBI press release, a DOJ press release, and a Vanity Fair piece.

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

080 US v. Giles

During my senior year of college, I went through a weird period of time where everything I ate made me feel nauseous and I wasn’t really experiencing hunger. My regular doctor couldn’t find anything wrong with me, suggesting it was perhaps just stress. My parents, however, were pretty concerned that their daughter wasn’t interested in food and demanded I seek more opinions. A second opinion was that it could be a brain tumor and took additional scans. It was the second brain tumor scare I had in college. Zero stars, do not recommend. I am not a human that does particularly well in clinical environments and it’s not uncommon that I require additional prompting to seek medical attention for what I perceive to be non-urgent conditions. Which is to say, I really sympathize with Airman Basic Giles, who felt that he really didn’t have a choice when it came to whether to seek treatment for his mental health crisis.

This episode contains a discussion of attempted death by suicide. If you are experiencing thoughts of self-harm, I urge you to contact the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by dialing 988. Help is also available via chat on their website. For support specific to veterans, first dial 988, then selecting option 1. They also have veteran-specific chat support.

I relied primarily on the AFCCA opinion.

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy

079 US v. Robinson

If you were hoping I’d kick season 4 off with a bang, I’ll instead start us off with a reference to Firework, the musical masterpiece from Katy Perry. I have no casual transition to tell you that the song is FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, and that its age makes me feel personally attacked. Apparently, there’s a not insignificant portion of servicemembers that DO feel like a plastic bag drifting through the wind wanting to start again. When servicemembers ignite the light and take flight from their commitment, their desertion doesn’t just leave the Department of Defense in awe–the DOD goes looking for them for the months, years, or decades it takes to track them down.

I relied on the the Robinson ACCA opinion and AFCCA opinion for Lemburg. I also referenced information from Instagram, PBS, WFTV, People, and Ocala.com.

Links to Listen:

Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Youtube · Youtube Music · Amazon Music · I Heart · Audacy