Navy Sonar Technician Second Class Benjamin H. Hartman served his country aboard fast-attack submarines, dangerous and invaluable work. But then he had sex with another male sailor, for which he received a bad conduct discharge.

Here's the question: Was Hartman's constitutionally protected privacy interest violated by his being punished for engaging in a private sex act? And here's the twist: It wasn't really private, because there was another sailor, a third man, in the room at the time Hartman engaged in anal intercourse.

And here's the twist to the twist: that third sailor was asleep.

In a Dec. 29 ruling, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals had to wrestle with this peculiar case. Represented by Marine Maj. Kirk Sripinyo, Hartman argued that his sex act was protected by the Supreme Court's reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas. This is what happened:

"(Hartman) awoke to find another male Sailor fondling his penis. The appellant eventually assisted the other Sailor in penetrating the appellant’s anus. This activity all occurred while a third occupant of the room, a petty officer also attached to the submarine, slept in one of the two beds in the room."

The appeals panel agreed that the sex act, per se, was potentially protected as a private affair. But wait, the judges further reasoned: all this was "in the presence of a third, albeit apparently unconscious, Sailor. This fact places it more in the 'public' than 'private' context." Thus, the judges reasoned, the otherwise intimate act was transformed into something "open and notorious," and hence punishable.

Sailor Richard R. Mott arrived for duty on the U.S.S. Cape George on March 6, 2007. Two days later, with no apparent provocation, he attacked and stabbed another sailor who was eating breakfast.

Mott explained his actions this way, according to a new ruling by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals:

"(Mott) apparently believed that in the summer of 2003, the victim and upwards of fifteen unknown males lept 'from the closet of his girlfriend’s apartment and raped him. The men shoved 'an unknown liquid and powder' in the appellant’s anus and then began 'cutting his anus with small plastic pieces.'"

Ever since, Mott said he had been wary of getting jumped again. He needed to protect himself. One problem, though: there was no evidence Mott and his victim had ever actually met. Mott was a head case, suffering from paranoid delusions.

But was he capable of understanding his act of violence; that is to say, was he morally culpable and legally responsible? A defense witness appeared to be equivocal, contending Mott was a paranoid schizophrenic but then under cross-examination stating Mott knew what he was doing. The prosecutors had a potential psychiatric expert of their own, who likewise agreed Mott was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. This witness was never called, and his conclusions never divulged to the defense.

Mott 's attorney on appeal, Navy Lt. Sarah E. Harris, was able to convince the appellate panel to overturn the court martial verdict and order a new hearing. Reasoned the court:

"We have no doubt that knowledge of the existence of a Government medical expert whose professional opinion wholly supported the opinion of the defense expert is a fact both favorable to the appellant and material to an assessment of his guilt and/or punishment."

Turns out there is an amphetamine-like drug called BZP. Alternatively known as "Sunrise," "Frenzy" and "Hummer," it apparently induces feelings of euphoria and well-being.

Naturally, it is illegal in the United States. Mama don't want no euphoria around here.

But in an interesting new ruling, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals has tossed out part of a BZP-related court martial conviction of Marine Lance Cpl. Joseph A. Baldwin. The problem: was the drug, whose full name is Benzylpiperizine, properly considered an unmailable "poison?"

Baldwin had deployed with his unit to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. While there, he placed two orders for BZP-containing drugs through a web site called herbalhighs, which operates out of Belize. One of the drug charges against Baldwin -- there were others not challenged on appeal -- was that he had caused the mailing of an item deemed unmailable under 18 USC 1716.

The law specifies "all kinds of poison, and all articles and compositions containing poison, and all poisonous animals, insects, reptiles, and all explosives, hazardous materials, inflammable materials, infernal machines..." etc. etc.

Infernal machines: nice.

The appellate panel concluded that the statute couldn't really be stretched to include BZP -- or any other controlled substance -- under the category of poison. The victory was cold comfort for Baldwin, though, as the judges declined to reduce the prison sentence.

Marine Lance Cpl. Delano V. Holmes killed an Iraqi Army soldier with whom he shared a guard post. That much is certain.

But exactly what happened, and why, outside Fallujah in the pre-dawn hours of Dec. 31, 2006 remains a mystery. Holmes, a reservist and former Indiana University scholarship student, says he was defending himself. This much we know: the Iraqi Army soldier, a Private Hassin, suffered 44 knife wounds and died of blood loss.

Holmes, a member of 1st Battalion, 24th Marines, 4th Marine Division, was subsequently found guilty of negligent homicide. But now, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals has agreed with Holmes and his attorney, Navy Lt. Heather Cassidy, that Holmes should be able to raise a claim of self-defense.

In the Oct. 8 ruling, the appellate court said that the trial judge's failure to explicitly allow a self-defense claim in the face of a negligent homicide charge may have unfairly contributed to the subsequent finding of guilt. Holmes says he and Hassin fought after Hassin showed unsafe light discipline, lighting a cigarette and opening a cell phone.

The ruling, moreover, has a tone of sympathy for Holmes, who told investigators conflicting stories but who also, the court noted, "frequently came under direct and indirect enemy fire while serving as a vehicle turret gunner." The outpost he shared with Hassin was "often subject to enemy fire" and was "an exposed, elevated position with limited ballistic protection."

The appellate court leaves open several options; in theory, Holmes could be retried. In reality, the thrust of appellate decision seems to suggest a better option is to drop the bad-conduct discharge sentence, though this leaves in place a conviction on charges of making false statements.