.jpg)
In United States v. Michael, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-6005/NA (C.A.A.F. Feb. 26, 2008), available here, CAAF reaches the unremarkable conclusion that a laptop computer found adrift may be opened by military personnel trying to determine its ownership, who do not violate the 4th Amendment by looking at the "recent documents" list in an attempt to find the owner's name.
The more interesting aspect of Michael is Judge Ryan's and Erdmann's concurrence which indicates that having lost the jurisdictional fight in Lopez de Victoria, they will henceforth honor the Lopez de Victoria majority's holding that CAAF does have jurisdiction to review CCA rulings on Article 62 appeals.
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
-
▼
2008
(813)
-
▼
February
(65)
- New published NMCCA opinion: United States v. Cab...
- One more thought about Wilson
- CAAF specifies pretrial punishment issue
- JO'C on military appellate review
- Three stars for three wise men cont'
- New Navy Chief Judge position
- The Kabul Klipper has unbolted the Golden CAAF
- And a third opinion
- Interesting addendum
- Wow
- BIG news!
- Still another reason to hate Project Outreach
- Wilson - The Lost in the Shuffle Post
- United States v. Wilson
- United States v. Cucuzzella
- United States v. Hall
- Three new opinions
- Some comparisons
- Another North County Times court-martial preview
- Happy anniversary
- United States v. Wuterich preview
- Is the table set?
- Looking at the clemency stats
- Renewed computer woes?
- Judge Meeks quashes USMC court-martial subpoena fo...
- Merry Christmas
- Attempted drunk on duty?
- New CAAF opinion
- Three stars for three wise men cont'
- A Thought On Law of War Charges
- New Army Lawyer on the streets
- Air Force appellate rights form nonsensical
- Cert denied x 2
- The other Green motion to dismiss
- U.S. district court vs. general court-martial
- Eastern District of Virginia abstention case
- A jurisdictional disconnect?
- Clarifying the relationship between Article 134's ...
- Clarifying search and seizure standards for bodily...
- Exploring the finer points of fraudulent enlistment
- Two new granted issues
- A CAAFlog exclusive: AFCCA's published opinion in...
- CAAF announces its Judicial Conference line-up
- Huge news week
- Two New CAAF Decisions: Inevitability and Move Alo...
- Proof Madame Secretary Rice Reads CAAFlog
- New CAAF decision on command influence
- CAAF: Mopping up stale beer again
- To paraphrase Ray Charles, Hit the road Jack and d...
- A military justice bestiary
- They're ba-a-a-a-a-a-ck
- CGCCA reverses conviction due to unexplored lack o...
- CGCCA holds two CGIS agents' five-minute conversat...
- 2 new published Coast Guard Court opinions
- Resource alert -- good news and bad news
- Erdmann/Baker on implied bias, or Hello Dolly Sods
- New CAAF decision
- Is that an Afghan SOFA you have?
- New published AFCCA opinion
- WaPo editorial on United States v. Whiteside
- NMCCA's Salinas opinion
- Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, so six more week...
- Some stylistic observations
- Happy anniversary?
- CAAF okays lies as an interrogation technique
-
▼
February
(65)
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
3 comments:
They almost have to, unless they get a third vote to overrule. Otherwise, they end up essentially just voting with whomever won below regardless of whether the CCA got it right or not. If the case is going to be decided on the merits, then they ought to weigh in on those merits.
After this decision, the Navy-Marine Corps appellate defense division is 1-8 this term. Their only victory was authored by an alum of several years ago. The batting average was much better in recent years. Have their been any changes in the N-MC appellate defense division?
Great moments in military law: the phrase "cum shot" will now return a hit in the military justice database. See footnote 3.
One aspect of CAAF review of Article 62 appeals is the time issue. Neither Lopez de Victoria or Michael mentions it. CAAF review eats up a considerable amount of time, particularly when, as in Michael, briefs get filed between terms. This was an easy case that NMCCA got exactly right. CAAF should have denied review. If they wanted to establish precedent on searches of gear adrift, they could have dispensed with oral argument to speed things up.
Post a Comment