.jpg)
I hadn't really scrutinized CAAF's latest annual report until today. But, fortunately, Gene Fidell directed my attention to it. The report reflects an interesting trend: in FY 2006, the court-martial rate plummeted. In the Army, GCMs were down 9.2% from the previous year and BCD Specials were down 18.1% In the Department of the Navy (USMC and USN), GCMs were down a whopping 23% while SPCMs were down 19.3%. In the Air Force, GCMs were down 19.19% while SPCMs were down 11.99%. Only the Coast Guard reports an increase, indicating that its GCMs were up 42% and its SPCMs were up 31%. (Those numbers don't appear to withstand scrutiny. The FY 2005 report says the Coast Guard tried 7 GCMs and 45 SPCMs that year. The FY 2006 report says the Coast Guard tried 16 GCMs and 32 SPCMs. So it looks like GCMs actually increased by an astounding 229% while SPCMs decreased by 29%. Can anyone explain the apparent disconnect?)
Here are the total numbers, throwing out the 6 non-BCD specials that the Army tried in 2006. (Those appear to be the only non-BCD specials tried by the entire U.S. military over a two-year period.)
----------GCMs--------SPCMs
2005-----1,613--------2,949
2006-----1,385--------2,359
Does anyone have a theory to explain such a sharp decline in the court-martial rate?
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)
-
▼
April
(50)
- Troubling new ACCA decision
- All good things come to those who wait 64 days
- Counter update
- SCOTUS shutout
- Which do you want first, the good news or the bad ...
- Paxton: Nothing New
- Long shot misses the target
- Amicus Granted for writ appeal
- The counter
- Oral Argument in United States v. Wilson
- Two more cases
- Palenius's Platitude
- Three New CAAF Decisions
- CAAF doesn't take petitions for granted
- Supremes deny cert in New
- The counter
- Long shot
- New published CGCCA decision
- The numbers climb like the Dow Jones Industrial Av...
- New CAAFlog contributor
- Court-martial rate plummets
- The counter
- MCM Changes
- UCMJ Jurisdiction over Government Contractors
- Stuck on 50
- Hitting the half century mark
- Diaz denied
- New v. Gates: certworthy?
- Proposed CAAF Rules changes
- Upcoming Code Committee meeting
- The Counter
- Intriguing lecture
- Two new published CCA opinions
- What if they held a C.A.A.F. and nobody came?
- To paraphrase Lincoln, sometimes it is better to r...
- Non-resource alert: Army Lawyer Jan. 2007 Ed.
- Dearing Saga is Over . . .?
- CAAF rejects writ appeal challenging really ugly C...
- CCA opinion accessibility
- Supply and demand
- New conference docketed
- Taylor is a privilege to read
- New CAAF opinion is out
- Government PETITION for grant of review?
- CAAF petitioners 0-for-March
- Another stealth published opinion
- Doctoring a members panel
- CAAFlog South Asia, Si?
- Art. 32 IO Recommends Dismissal of Charges Against...
- While I was away . . .
-
▼
April
(50)
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:
Though I am skeptical of the news media on these issues, I read a Wash. Post story a while back that said commanders were seeing fewer disciplinary cases with the high Op Tempo and were taking fewer soldiers and Marines to court martial. This actually validates that story. I'd guess that Marines accounted for the largest change in DoN numbers, as fewer Navy personnel bore the burden of the War. The CG numbers show that there is no change in a force that is largely unchanged by the war. Though there is some greater usage of CG assets, CG personnel aren't in country by and large. It makes sense in Iraq where commanders have put in place strict trules on force "off duty" behavior that the force will get into less trouble. Take away the elixir of every soldier and Marine, alcohol, and that alone explains some percentage.
Did you see the play at first by my fellow Art. 2 follower, right between the wickets! Not sure if he is cut out for the big leagues of CAAFlog.
My recollection is that the CAAF Annual Report measures the number of court-martial records of trial that have been forwarded to the service JAG. I doubt there were fewer courts-martial, I just assume that there are more records of trial stashed in the bottom desk drawer of paralegals who are supposed to be drafting SJARs.
On a more serious note, there's probably a kernal of truth in No Man's comment on op tempo. When I prosecuted 5th Marines courts-martial, it was like clockwork that whichever battalion came back from a pump would immediately have a meth epidemic running through the ranks. Too much down time.
It can't be that the report simply compiles what has been sent to the various OJAGs because it includes acquittals. It is presented as a record of how many cases were actually tried -- numbers that are probably gleaned from the various services' trial judiciary HQs.
Would you place any weight on court-martial statistics compiled by local commands?
I can see it now:
"Hey, Gunny, they need to know how many courts-martial we had last year."
"Uhh, tell 'em we had three GCMs and 25 SPCMs."
Here's another question as we try to reason through this. Was the operational tempo really that much more taxing in FY 2006 than in FY 2005?
I didn't believe the report either, but that is the only hypothesis that I have heard thrown out that fits the numbers. One would think as CAAFlog seems to suggest, that OIF had no higher optempo in 2005 than 2006. The only other recent theory I can think to throw would be an inconvenient truth and not a real theory. I'l
l find a way to link fewer C-M, Art. 2, Apprendi, and global warming tomorrow.
Post a Comment