Wednesday, January 09, 2008
I will keep this short and let the comments decide, particularly since CAAFlog has eloquently summarized Falcon below. In Falcon CAAF said the gambler's defense from Wallace did not apply in Falcon because the accused was charged under Art. 123a, not Art. 134. Essentially they are saying the Wallace gambler's defense has no place in this case. Then, after making that HOLDING, CAAF goes on to "expressly" overrule Wallace . . . in a case where they said Wallace did not apply. Isn't there some prudential or case-or-controversy-esque limit on CAAF overruling precedent in a case where the precedent does not apply? Talk amongst yourselves.
Posted by Mike "No Man" Navarre at 9:50 PM