Friday, January 05, 2007


Like the armies struggling outside Chalmette Plantation in 1814-15, NMCCA was blissfully unaware that, when it decided United States v. Adams last month, it had already lost the Battle of New Orleans II. The C.A.A.F. decided the case of United States v. Canchola, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2006) yesterday. Canchola appears to be an advisory opinion or, more appropriately, a rebuke of the NMCCA. As it did in Adams, NMCCA decided to tinker with C.A.A.F.'s recent post-trial delay analysis. "There must be recognition in the post-trial arena of the concept of 'excludable delay' for good cause show, just as it is in the pretrial arena." United States v. Canchola, __ M.J. __ (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006). The C.A.A.F. disagreed. In footnote two, the Court states that Judge Wagner's novel application of "excludable delay" to the Moreno analysis is "inappropriate." "Review and balancing of the Barker factors, as set forth in our recent appellate delay jurisprudence, provide a sufficient framework for determining whether a due process violation has occurred." If C.A.A.F. liked Canchola, they are going to love Adams.

1 comment:

No Man said...

I would say that Canchola was a published spanking of their lower court. This dispute is similar to the Supreme Court's dispute with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals over death penalty cases. See SCOTUS Blog here Like the Texas CCA the NMCCA just can't seem to follow binding precedent. The Adams case is reminiscient of the Penry cases in the Texas CCA and the recent cases shceduled for hearing at SCOTUS on Jan. 17. In Adams, NMCCA cites every court except CAAF on how to construe post-trial delay. See