.jpg)
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Two New CAAF Decisions: Inevitability and Move Along, Nothing New to See Here
Two new CAAF decisions are available on CAAF's web page, Scott and Wallace. CAAF affirms lower court decisions for the government in both cases. In Wallace CAAF found inevitable discovery trumped Appellant's arguments that he revoked consent, with Judges Baker and Ryan concurring but arguing that the Appellant consented. In Scott, CAAF holds unanimously that an unserved SJAR Addendum did not raise a new matter. CAAFlog had some commentary when CAAF granted Scott on the pragmatic logic of serving all SJAR Addendums here, so expect some commentary tonight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Maybe the Scott case demonstrates a diffence is service styles, as in my experience (USMC) SJARs and addendums are short and simple. I have no idea why an SJA in Scott took two paragraphs to say what should take two sentences. All that was required was an addendum stating:
1. The enclosure contains post-trial matters submitted by the defense counsel for your consideration.
2. Within the enclosure, the defense counsel has alleged the adjudged sentence is inappropriately severe. I have reviewed this allegation of error and find it to be without merit.
Surely, none of you will argue this such a two sentence addendum should be served on the defense.
Post a Comment