.jpg)
Monday, December 10, 2007
New CAAF opinion
CAAF has posted a per curiam opinion in United States v. Wright, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0412/AR (C.A.A.F. Dec. 10, 2007) (per curiam). Here's a link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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)
-
▼
December
(53)
- All quiet on the E Street front
- It's almost 2008; do you know where your Manual fo...
- No third star yet
- New certified case [expanded]
- Is it time time gets a nip and tuck at CAAF?
- Weston en banced
- No certificate in Wild
- Link to Ortizrodriguez
- NMCCA Affirms Article 10 Dismissal
- Happy Festivus! from your Blackberry addict contr...
- Is a "cover-up" lie told after the murder a statem...
- Crawford and co-conspirators' statements
- ACCA affirms in United States v. Diamond
- WWBJD III: The certified issue
- Charlie Savage's follow-up to his Globe article
- Interesting CAAF orders
- Test Driving Wayne Johnson's Booker Argument
- CAAF's briefless grant
- A new pro se IFP military cert petition
- Two new grants, one with briefs and one without
- Judge advocate promotions and oversight by politic...
- 3 stars for three wise men cont'
- All in the Family
- To quote the Go-Gos, Vacation
- To certify or not to certify
- Important article from the Boston Globe
- An Army certified issue
- NIMJ comments on CAAF's proposed rules changes
- Foerster set for conference
- September issue of the Army Lawyer
- New military justice research resource
- Two new CAAF Opinions: CAAF Joins the Pack in Pack
- Maryland v. Craig lives!
- New issue of the Reporter
- New AFCCA published opinion on post-trial proceedings
- Monitoring and the attorney-client privilege
- Former Gitmo Prosecutor Interview and Torture Deri...
- AWOL Military Justice by Col. Morris Davis
- IO reportedly recommends against court-martial for...
- Have an ice trip
- Another Air Force certificate of review
- New CAAF opinion
- 3 Stars for three wise men
- State Department/DOD MOA on private security contr...
- Conference Report Highlights
- The Long Arm of Long
- United States v. Whiteside cont'
- Another Naval Academy Officer/Instructor Related C...
- Second and third CAAF opinions of the Term
- Proposed CAAF rules change
- Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for ACCA...
- Two new published ACCA opinions
- WaPo coverage of United States v. Whiteside
-
▼
December
(53)
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
19 comments:
Who voted to grant review of THAT?
Obviously an important issue needing the Court's attention. Not sure about your confusion here, JOC.
This decision is like a Sunday school lesson. Good morality, but hardly black letter law. I wonder if the law-and-order types who think that this decision making "false suggestion" a crime was right down the middle of the fairway are as gung-ho in their support of "false suggestions" made by President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, etc.?
Captain America, I think you've reverted back to sickly Steve Rogers on this one (look it up).
The most important fact in this case is that the accused pleaded guilty and admitted that, in context, what he said was false (and I think he was well justified in making that admission). Nobody made him plead guilty. If he had chosen to plead not guilty, he would have been free to argue that, in context, what he said wasn't false. In light of his guilty plea, I think it's an easy call that there is no basis for disturbing the accused's voluntary guilty plea. The notion that falsity depends on context hardly strikes me as novel.
Personally, I think the CAAF spent TOO much time on this case. It doesn't even really deserve the "written in crayon on a cocktail napkin" treatment that it got here.
I agree. Frankly, CAAF spends too much time on almost ALL of their defense driven, borderline frivolous appeals. They should probably just churn out a couple of token merits opinions per term and dispense with the rest by summary affirmances. Don't you agree, Mr. O'Connor?
c. point,
You lose your credibility when you take anyone who might disagree with you on a given issue and try to make them into a caricature.
I do think that THIS case borders on frivilous. And you know what, the fact that the CAAF appears to have taken about 45 seconds to dispose of the case suggests that I'm not alone.
If CAAF did think this was borderline frivolous, why even waste the time on a per curiam opinion? Why not just recognize it was improvidently granted and summarily affirm? Result the same - yes. But, time was wasted nonetheless.
Actually, JOC, I do not disagree with your bottom line conclusion (that the facts here are enough to ratify a guilty plea). I was being whimsically obnoxious by pointing out that the underlying legal theory, that "false suggestions" are lies, is not so strong. At least no more than the government should be able to arrest you if your name is not really john o'connor.
I think one reason that CAAF may grant cases like these is to make sure MJs are aware that CAAF is out there looking over their shoulders and will double check the factual basis of these guilty pleas to make sure they don't devolve into speed dating rituals.
I am with JOC on this one. I don't think that I have ever seen a case decided thirteen days after it was argued. That speaks directly to the merit of the case. CAAF sometimes grants frivolous issues.
Guert,
You're right most of the time. (But should CAAF should write a nasty opinion excoriating itself for taking the issue and then sanction itself?)
But I disagree that this was a frivolous issue. Appeals courts sometimes speak on simple issues and make plain statements of the law that are not intellectually stimulating. Is it likely that this case will be cited by the service courts? Yes, of course. Similar issues will arise quite frequently. So CAAF is doing its job.
In addition, take a broader look at "false official statement" jurisprudence. The crime has expanded well beyond its original intent, and I think CAAF will start to draw some boundaries. I think we have some foreshadowing here. CAAF is going to start a trend of warnings that a "false official statement" is not just a fun add-on charge for prosecutors.
Prosecutors/SJA's typically add on "fun charges" (read frivolous in context) when they have a slew of other - usually much more serious charges. Captain America is right that law school pleading can be a time waster. It would be good if CAAF would step in and delineate some restraints, rather than broadening the meaning and application of statutes. So I would like to think Captain America is right about what CAAF may be doing.
On "this was a guilty plea." It wouldn't be the first time that an accused has been required to plead to silly little charges in order to get a PTA on some really serious stuff. To me frivolous charging starts at the prosecution/SJA level, CAAF merely closes the loop.
Let's not just throw around the word frivolous here like it doesn't have special meaning for lawyers - it does. In fact, aren't frivolous appeals sanctionable? If so, is this really a frivolous issue, and CAAF just decided to be nice and not bring the pain? Or, is it just above frivolous, but not worthy of the Court's time? If it's the second option, why grant, argue, and write at all. Why not grant, oops we shouldn't have granted, and short form it?
An enlightened Super Hero filled discussion. Where is big daddy when you need him?
I just had to add something on the over use of the word frivolous. The word connotes that counsel should not have raised the issue, which I hope no one above intended. Some appellate counsel wrote a brief on this issue that sufficiently caught the attention of enough CAAF judges to be granted. A lot of other CAAF supps written at the same time were not granted review. That was either one hell of a well written supp, or maybe, just maybe, this issue want so frivilous as the comments above would suggest. Let's just change the phrasing to the issue did not prevail and counsel did his/her job. Nothing frivilous about that. I suggest that this is also a change NMCCA should recognize in the phrasing of their opinions.
Lemonjello:
You had me at "Let's"
This was, admittedly, not the most complex or controversial issue. But CAAF would not have granted on the issue if they thought it was "frivolous." They get hundreds of petitions a year, and grant on only very few. They have better things to do with their time.
Someone called?
Let me offer my frivolous objection to the frivolous use of the term frivolous. Let us all frolic in frivolity. Because frivolously using the term frivolous makes ME feel so non-frivolous.
"Counsel, your argument is so full of 'friv'! Its not full of "marv" - because then it would be marvelous. Instead, it is frivolous."
When I stutter, I say: fri-fri-fri-fri - frivolous.
When I get annoyed at other people - I call them "frivles" - people who are fulled with friv and utter frivolities.
Using the term frivolous is a frivolous shield against employing simple reason. It is the grown-ups way of saying: "Just because" to his child's persistent questioning, "why, why, why?" The problem is that the "why?" is simultaneously both the most frivolous question and the most profound question.
But all of the above was idle frivolousness. We will ALL one day die - and the great cosmic nothingness will devour and eternally erase all that we held and loved and hoped for and dreamed of. That's because - in the end - it is WE who are frivolous.
Socrates, I think you are full of poop
I must admit that frivolous is too harsh of a word, with legal and ethical implications, that laymen like myself cast about too frequently. This opinion may have been necessary, at least in the minds of two judges, to illuminate some very shallow recess of the Court's jurisprudence.
Post a Comment