LRM v. Kastenberg
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
72 M.J. 364 (2013)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Airman First Class Nicholas Daniels was charged with the rape of Airman First Class LRM (plaintiff). Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Kastenberg (defendant) served as the military judge for the case. Captain Seth Dilworth served as special victims’ counsel for LRM. In his notice of appearance, Dilworth asserted that LRM had standing involving issues arising under Military Rules of Evidence (MRE) 412 (rape shield), 513 (psychotherapist-patient privilege), and 514 (victim advocate–victim privilege) in which LRM was the patient or witness. Dilworth asked the court to direct the defense counsel to provide LRM with copies of any motions related to these rules. The defense counsel agreed to provide copies but objected to Dilworth’s attendance or participation in any evidentiary hearings. At Daniels’s arraignment hearing, Kastenberg ruled that LRM’s right to be heard was limited to factual matters, Dilworth was prohibited from arguing evidentiary matters on LRM’s behalf, and LRM did not have standing to file motions for relief regarding production of documents. LRM’s motion for reconsideration was denied. LRM petitioned the Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus. The court denied the petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The Air Force Judge Advocate General then certified several issues, including the issue of LRM’s right to be heard through counsel, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baker, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.