Thursday, February 15, 2007

Plane error

CAAF's just-completed Project Outreach trip sparked some controvery. In light of our previous discussion, it seems amusing that Judges Baker and Ryan weren't present at the Southern University Law Center for CAAF's oral argument in United States v. Flores.

At the start of the argument, the audio of which is now up on CAAF's web site, Chief Judge Effron explained that "Judges Baker and Ryan unavoidably have been delayed due to transportation problems but they will be participating in this case on the record."

I'll bet all five judges could have made it to 450 E Street.

--Dwight Sullivan

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm sure a lot of things could've happened if they had stayed at 450 E Street. Cut them some slack. They're new at their jobs, and the weather did stink this week.

I usually enjoy this blog because of its intelligence and insight, but it's starting to get a little self-indulgent and "cute" for my tastes.

Dwight Sullivan said...

I'm not faulting Judge Baker (who isn't new) or Judge Ryan (who is) for failing to make it to Baton Rouge on 12 Feb. I'm faulting Project Outreach for expecting them to.

CAAF's job isn't to provide educational experiences. CAAF's job isn't to promote the military justice system. Its statutory mission is to review cases for legal error. See UCMJ art. 67(c), 10 U.S.C. 867(c).

Does Project Outreach help CAAF accomplish its statutory mission, hurt it, or have no effect? To answer that question, we must answer a preliminary question: does oral argument matter? If not, we are wasting massive amounts of time and resources that could otherwise be devoted to reducing delay at the CCA level. Let's assume what I believe to be true: that oral argument can (but doesn't always) help CAAF accomplish its statutory mission.

Given that assumption, then this week Project Outreach may have interfered with CAAF's accomplishment of its mission. Presumably if Flores had been heard at CAAF's courthouse, there would have been a five-judge bench. Because it was argued in Baton Rogue, there were only three judges. Both of the missing judges typically play active roles in oral argument. Both typically ask insightful questions. If oral argument helps CAAF produce better opinions, then the Flores opinion may not be as good because two judges will decide the case on the basis of a recording of the oral argument rather than by participating in it.

Should Project Outreach continue? If so, should the number of cases heard on the road be adjusted?

--Dwight Sullivan

John O'Connor said...

For once, I actually agree with caaflog. For want of a better word, Project Outreach is "stupid."

Dwight Sullivan said...

I was just looking at United States v. Moses, 45 M.J. 132 (C.A.A.F. 1996), for reasons unrelated to the CAAFlog blog, when I came across this footnote:

"This case was argued at United States Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia, on May 29, 1996, without objection from the parties involved. . . . ." Id. at 133 n.2.

That made me wonder: is it CAAF's practice to ask if either party objects before scheduling a case as a Project Outreach argument? (If so, I guess Cabrera-Frattini made the wrong choice.)

John O'Connor said...

Yikes. The only thing I seem to agree with caaflog on is Project Outreach and the only this you disagree with caaflog on is Project Outreach.

Or are your words carefully chosen such that Project Outreach is the only issue on which yiou "respectfully" disagree with caaflog, the other instances being where you contemptuously disagree with caaflog? This latter possibility, I guess I could understand . . .

Mike "No Man" Navarre said...

MCB Quantico, now there is an outreach location worth merit---see my comments under Migration of Military Case Law.

Anonymous said...

"CAAF's job isn't to provide educational experiences. CAAF's job isn't to promote the military justice system."

That is one of the reasons the quality of lawyering we hear on the audio continues to decline.