Monday, December 04, 2006

CAAF confirmation hearing

Sometime in the next couple of days a transcript of today’s CAAF confirmation hearings should be available. (Apparently there’s some confirmation hearing on the Hill tomorrow that’s considered even bigger than today’s CAAF hearing; anyone know what that’s about?) I'll review it and post an analysis when it's ready.

In the meantime, we’ll have to content ourselves with the nominees’ advance policy questions, which are available on the Senate Armed Services Committee’s web site.

Lance-Judge Stucky link:

Lance-Judge Ryan link:

[Seriously, No-Man, how do I paste those in as a hypertext link?]

Here is, by far, the most interesting question:

Please describe the three decisions of the USCAAF since 2001 which you believe have been the most significant.

Lance-Judge Stucky’s answer:

United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (2001) (status of legality of an order as question of law; application of political question doctrine to courts-martial).

United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (2004) (constitutionality of Article 125 of the UCMJ as applied, in light of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)).

United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (2006) (due process implications of excessive delays in post-trial review; applicability of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) to courts-martial).

Lance-Judge Ryan’s answer:

United States v. Wiessen, 56 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2001) – analyzing challenges for cause based on implied bias of a member and recognizing that implied bias undermines public confidence in the military justice system.

Diaz v. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 59 M.J. 34 (C.A.A.F. 2003) – emphasizing that the petitioner’s right to a full and fair review of findings and sentence under Article 6 embodies the concomitant right to have that review conducted in a timely fashion, and that these rights must be recognized, enforced, and protected by the government, by the appellate attorneys, and by the USCAAF.

United States v. Lewis, 63 M.J. 405 (C.A.A.F. 2006) – reemphasizing that unlawful command influence is the mortal enemy of military justice and that, where it is found to exist, judicial authorities must take those steps necessary to preserve both the actual and apparent fairness of criminal proceedings.

It’s interesting that no case appears on both lance-judges’ lists, though Moreno is a direct descendant of Diaz.

What would you, dear CAAFlog reader, list as your top three? (And try not to just list your own cases.)

--Dwight Sullivan


Bridget said...

Diaz, Marcum, Loving in its various forms.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Well the way it's supposed to work using HTML, is that you type the following

the title

So, let me try that again.

Stuckey 2


Jason Grover said...

I think I will agree with Bridget. But as a side note, nice job LT Brian Mizer- as counsel in two of the cases, one in each judge's list: Moreno and Lewis.

Jason Grover said...

One disappointing note:

Neither nominee, when asked, "Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to enhance your ability to perform the duties of a judge on the USCAAF?" responded:

"Daily reading of the CAAFlog."

No Man said...

Linking: while highlighting the text you want linked, you need to click the little icon that looks like an eraser. Cases: Loving, Parker v. Levy and Biagase (and progeny est. UCI as an appearance issue)

Jason Grover said...

No Man-
Three CAAF decisions from 2001, not Supreme Court from 1974!

No Man said...

Hey Muppet, you trying posting from your BlackBerry on a moving train! Try this:

Cases: Loving, and any case citing Parker v. Levy (because it still remains the most important decision in MilJus) or Biagase (and progeny est. UCI as an appearance issue)