Friday, April 04, 2008

NMCCA ordered to either decide case or explain delay in en banc reconsideration

On 16 November 2006, NMCCA issued a split opinion setting aside the findings and sentence in a general court-martial case due to the trial counsel's comment on the accused's silence. United States v. Abdirahman, No. NMCCA 200401082 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2006). Apparently the Government moved for en banc reconsideration and the court granted that motion. But now -- almost 17 months later -- NMCCA has yet to issue its opinion. Seaman Recruit Abdirahman's counsel sought an extraordinary writ from CAAF ordering NMCCA to withdraw its order granting en banc reconsideration or, in the alternative, decide the case within 45 days. The government responded by objecting to the withdrawal option but joining in the decide-within-45-days option.

CAAF has now responded with an order denying the portion of the petition for extraordinary relief seeking to quash the en banc reconsideration, but ordering "that the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals shall either decide the case within 45 days or provide this Court with an explanation of the need for further consideration." Abdirahman v. United States, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-8008/NA (C.A.A.F. Apr. 3, 2008).

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do you think CAAF thinks of the service courts? I've read some older cases where they use terms like "well-reasoned opinion of the lower court." I haven't seen anything like that lately....

Anonymous said...

Results are a better indicator than dicta. Of the 15 NMCCA cases heard by CAAF this term, 13 were affirmed. 2 were overturned, one of which had two dissenting judges. In a third case, CAAF disagreed with whether lab tests were "testimonial" but upheld on harmless error. Not a bad track record considering the sheer number of NMCCA cases (hundreds?)reviewed by the staff attorneys at CAAF, who are actively looking for potential error.

Anonymous said...

Better question: Of those 15 cases, for how many did CAAF actually endorse the legal reasoning of NMCCA, as opposed to affirming on other grounds, such as a different legal theory or for harmless error?

I would submit that the true measure of judicial intellect is the ability to competently anlayze a potential legal error, not the ability to just look at facts and decide that a case is so factually overwhelming that the accused could not have been prejudiced by any errors. So while NMCCA may have been right on prejudice, that is not an indicator of the quality of their opinions; simply looking at affirmance rates in a vacuum is meaningless.

But don't let me stop you from drinking the kool-aid.