.jpg)
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
Military justice blogs are to blogs as military music is to music. The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacity. They do not purport to be speaking for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity.
Military justice research links
- 2008 Military Judges' Benchbook web site
- AFMAN 51-203, Records of Trial (1 Oct 1999)
- AFPD 51-2, Administration of Military Justice (7 Sep 1993)
- Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice (21 Dec 07)
- Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct
- AR 27-10, Military Justice (16 Nov 2005)
- AR 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (1 May 1992)
- COMDTINST M5810.1D, Military Justice Manual (17 Aug 2000)
- Congressional Research Service, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Trends (March 30, 2006 ed.)
- Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (2002) with 2006 supplement
- JAGINST 5803.1C, Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the Judge Advocate General (9 Nov 04)
- JAGINST 5810.2A, Military Justice Regulations (17 Sep 93)
- JAGMAN, JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 07)
- Law Library Microform Consortium, Military Law Collection
- LOC military law collection
- Manual for Courts-Martial (2008 ed.)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.)
- Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN), JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 2007)
- Military Justice, Army Regulation 27-10 (16 Nov 2005)
- UCMJ (as of 28 Jan 2008)
Links
- ACCA's web site
- AFCCA's web site
- AIr Force Judge Advocate General's School's web site
- Air Force Law Review
- Army Lawyer
- Army Trial Judiciary's docket
- CAAF's web site
- CAAFlog.com
- CGCCA's web site
- Coast Guard trial and appellate dockets
- Court-Martial Trial Practice blog
- JAA American Inn of Court's web site
- JAA's web site
- JAG LAW Blog
- JAG Magazine [Navy]
- Journal of Military and Veteran Law
- Military Law Review
- Naval Law Review
- NIMJ's web site
- NJS's web site
- NMCCA's web site
- SCOTUSblog (aka, the greatest blog on the planet)
- Supreme Court's web site
- The Reporter [Air Force]
- This Court-Martial Sentences You To . . . [blog]
- TJAGLCS's web site
Blog archive
-
▼
2007
(657)
-
▼
February
(46)
- New published CGCCA UA/providence inquiry opinion
- Tracking trial-level courts-martial
- Othuru effect
- Tate's fate includes NC&PB date (after long wait)
- Military death penalty system by the numbers
- New NMCCA Chief Judge
- New published AFCCA case
- CAAF invites amicus briefs
- De facto automatic jurisdiction?
- Fascinating statistic
- The Diaz case just won't end
- The era of three-part harmony ends
- Lovett Denied
- What's New is old again
- Restitution and confinement contingent on restitut...
- Migration of military case law
- The Moreno Doppelganger
- Moreno effect? (part trois)
- Plane error
- Another bite at the apple?
- Request for additional time to file cert petition ...
- Have an ice Valentine's Day
- They're Back . . .
- Bye, bye, bovine
- Ghosts in the machine
- The Rhodes less traveled
- Happy New Year, NMCCA
- Stop reading this blog
- Fear and loathing at NMCCA
- Chinese Calendar May Say Year of the Dinghai (Fire...
- Appellate post delay
- Interesting Developments at C.A.A.F.
- CAAF rejects amicus brief: Why can't we be friends?
- Gathering Dust
- SG in the passing Lane
- The post-trial delay fairy
- New published CGCCA Pierce credit case
- Naval Academy Quarterback Case Featured on WJZ 13
- Annual Manual?
- Haditha Case is . . . A Mess?
- Too good to be true?
- Supreme Court update
- CAAF Recap
- New published ACCA decision
- Subject Matter Days at CAAF
- Two new CAAF opinions
-
▼
February
(46)
Labels
- Admin (14)
- Architecture (2)
- Art. 2a10 (27)
- Article 125 (1)
- CAAF docket (41)
- CAAF grants (28)
- CAAF judges (2)
- CAAF oral argument audio (11)
- Capital courts-martial (46)
- CCAs (32)
- CLE/Events (13)
- collateral review (4)
- Court-martial news (69)
- habeas (5)
- MEJA (31)
- Military commissions (5)
- Military justice legislation (19)
- Military justice reform (18)
- MilJus Scholarship (22)
- New Article 120 (8)
- New CAAF opinions (40)
- New CCA opinions (47)
- Rants (9)
- SCOTUS MilJus Cases (64)
- TWIMJ (39)
- US SOFAs (16)
Contributors
Our contact information
You can reach us by email at:
caaflog@caaflog.com
caaflog@caaflog.com
Posts
7 comments:
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.
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
For once, I actually agree with caaflog. For want of a better word, Project Outreach is "stupid."
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.)
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 . . .
MCB Quantico, now there is an outreach location worth merit---see my comments under Migration of Military Case Law.
"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.
Post a Comment