Friday, February 29, 2008

New published NMCCA opinion: United States v. Cabrera-Frattini

I only have a few moments today, so I'll just provide this link to a new NMCCA published opinion that isn't up on the court's web site yet. If no one beats me to it, I'll add some analysis over the weekend. But imagine my joy when I saw that the new published NMCCA opinion was in the case of United States v. Cabrera-Frattini.


Anonymous said...

I respect Judge White for his thoughtful opinions. He takes defense arguments seriously, even in disagreement, and so his writings demonstrate a judicial temperment often lacking in NMCCA opinions.

Many NMCCA opinions are written as if the author was a radio talk show host playing to the gallery. These opinions omit the specific facts of the case, are light-on-the-law, express annoyance or anger at defense arguments as if they were attacks on America.

BZ to Judge White and his scholarship. Please assign him the duty of editing Judge Geiser's opinions.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the magical NMCCA words "we conclude that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant was committed." I am not saying they got in wrong (or right) on this one, but one would think they could come up with different wording.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous #2, the "magical" words" define the scope of the CCAs' authority and responsibility under Art. 66. If they came up with different wording, I suspect CAAF would remand for another review.


Anonymous said...

Check out the AFCCA opinions. They tend to be worthless by never explaining how the facts apply to the law to render the results. Might as well just write a one line opinion affirming or reversing -- like the ACCA. No heavy intellectual lifting necessary.