Two steps forward, one step back

Upon my return home this evening, I have found about a week's worth of new material on CAAF's daily journal.

On 6 June 2007, CAAF had granted review of the following issue:

IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT A MILITARY JUDGE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW AND APPLY THE LAW CORRECTLY, IN A CASE IN WHICH THE JUDGE SITTING ALONE, EVALUATED THE APPELLANT'S CREDIBILITY BASED UPON TWO SPECIFICATIONS LATER DISMISSED ON APPEAL, DID THAT DISMISSAL CREATE IMPROPER SPILLOVER IN THE JUDGE'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY AS TO THE REMAINING OFFENSES?

United States v. Martinez, 65 M.J. 278 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (order granting review).

According to CAAF's Scheduled Hearings page, the court heard a 15-minute argument in the case on 16 October. At least according to the public hearing notice, the issue was specified. Apparently it wasn't as interesting a question as at least two judges orginally thought. Last Thursday, CAAF rejected the specified issue in a summary disposition, ruling:

Upon further consideration of the granted issue, 65 M.J. 278-79 (C.A.A.F. 2007), the Court notes that military judges are presumed to know the law and follow it absent clear evidence to the contrary, United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221, 225 (C.A.A.F. 2007), including the principle that each offense and the evidence supporting that offense must stand on its own. See United States v. Southworth, 50 M.J. 74, 76-78 (C.A.A.F. 1999). In this case, Appellant has not rebutted that presumption. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Martinez, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0028/MC (C.A.A.F. Nov. 1, 2007) (summary disposition).