Even newer CAAF grant

In the wake of the 64-day grant drought, it is now raining more often. In a quasi-unusual Friday update to the daily journal, CAAF posted a new grant today (or, by now, I guess yesterday). The issues in United States v. Stevenson, __ M.J. ___, No. 06-0934/NA (C.A.A.F. May 30, 2007), are:

WHETHER NCIS AND VA HOSPITAL PERSONNEL VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BY SEIZING APPELLANT'S BLOOD AND SEARCHING IT FOR DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE OR A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED ON PROBABLE CAUSE?

IF THIS COURT SUPPRESSES THE EVIDENCE FROM THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE, DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY FAILING TO ADDRESS OR SUPPRESS BLOOD AND DNA EVIDENCE GAINED BY A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED ON TAINTED EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS?

The opinion below, United States v. Stevenson, No. NMCCA 200301272 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. July 24, 2006), was issued on 24 July 2006. (Interestingly, the opinion below says that it is published but it never actually appeared in the Military Justice Reporter.) That seems like quite a gap between the opinion below and the grant at CAAF -- especially considering that one of the issues below (but not granted at CAAF) was post-trial delay. This delay in merely deciding whether to hear the case continues to raise the question of whether CAAF should have automatic jurisdiction over any military justice case that a convicted servicemember wants to appeal -- an issue touched on in the original CAAFlog Talk. Isn't the concept of civilian review of the military justice system sufficiently important that it should be available in any case in which it is desired? I believe that CAAF could easily accommodate such automatic jurisdiction with two simple tweaks: (1) confining itself to issues raised by the parties; and (2) sitting in three-judge panels. (If the first tweak were adopted, the second wouldn't even be necessary.) While I had the hood up, I would also make EVERY court-martial conviction eligible for military appellate review, dropping the jurisdictional requirements for entering the Articles 66-67a track. I also support the more radical engine overhaul of removing the CCAs and having CAAF be the only military appellate court, but the other reforms strike me as worthwhile regardless of whether the CCAs stay or go.