2. Should this Court reconsider and modify, or even overrule, the “full and fair consideration” standard of review governing collateral attacks on court-martial convictions established in Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)?
This issue could have enormous impact on Article III courts' collateral review of court-martial convictions. It could be especially significant in capital cases.
The National Institute of Military Justice (NIMJ) has weighed in with an amicus brief in support of certiorari, available here:
http://www.nimj.org/documents/FinalAmicusBriefreCert.pdf [Hey, No Man -- how do I make that a hypertext link?]
"[R]esearch on the impact of amicus briefs in the Supreme Court has indicated that the presence of amicus briefs increases the likelihood of a grant of certiorari . . . ." Paul M. Collins Jr., Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation, 38 Law & Soc'y Rev. 807, 807 (2004).
This cert petition is one to watch. We will have to see if it shows up on SCOTUSblog's list of cert petitions with a reasonable chance of being granted.
CAAF's opinion in the case is United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 955 (2001). The D.C. Circuit's opinion that New asks the Supreme Court to review is United States ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006).