Wednesday, May 09, 2007

May is Mathews month

There is a new opinion posted on CAAF's web site. United States v. Carr, __ M.J. ___, No. 06-0758/AF (C.A.A.F. May 9, 2007). Judge Stucky for a unanimous court. Incredibly, Carr affirms yet another ruling by Judge Mathews the Great, favorably quoting his opinion from below along the way. See slip op. at 8. But this isn't just any JMTG opinion; this is the U-Haul decision that first launched JMTG on the road to becoming the OCFCJ.

6 comments:

No Man said...

Not that I would ever question CAAFlog, JMTG, and the entire CAAF, but young Marines or sailors (officer and enlisted) who might stumble on this opinion would be unnerved by how thinly the law slices the onion. The line between a crime and just good man skills just got a little closer. How many readers have ever met a woman, in a bar or library, sober or not, and "induced" the lady to do something with a little white lie about your "qualifications"? I won't disagree with the tidal wave of great legal minds on this one, but this sure seems like a closer one than the case portrays- maybe the whole examination in Mom's attic put them over the edge.

No Man said...

I have to correct CAAFlog on his link to the first Judge mMtthews love fest. When Carr was first granted on Nov. 24, 2006, CAAFlog began his JMTG love fest (see http://caaflog.blogspot.com/2006/11/caaf-grants-two-air-force-cases.html).

I also must credit the Clipper for the first Mom's Attic reference in a Carr comment.

John O'Connor said...

This case was not close. If the accused says "I'm a doctor" because he thinks that status is more likely to impress the ladies, then he's just a cad but not necessarily a criminal. If he says he's a doctor and wants to perform medical procedures in the woman's nether regions, he's a cad and a criminal.

bill cassara said...

This strikes me as one of those cases that, after reading it, I have to wonder why CAAF even granted review. It just doesn't look like a close call.

Fitzcarraldo said...

I suspect that the uniqueness of the fact pattern (how could an appellate court pass up the chance to weigh in on case of the fake gynecologist?) had some impact on the Court's decision to grant review.

John O'Connor said...

Bill Cassarra:

I think No Man's judgment that this was a close call is probably a reflection on No Man and not the CAAF or the rest of us. Could you imagine that guy functioning in a work place? Me neither.