Friday, June 06, 2008

The Golden CAAF Stakes

The Kabul Klipper has been unable to bestow the Golden CAAF on anyone for so long, it looked like it might become his by adverse possession. But now there is a Golden CAAF Stakes developing with a few contenders approaching the starting gate. Of course, the metaphor ultimately breaks down -- some horse will have to win the Belmont, even if Big Brown were to disappoint. But no one has to win the Golden CAAF.

Let's look at the horses in the paddock. LCDR Eversole's Stevenson cert petition has generated considerable buzz in the CAAFlog comments and NIMJ and NVLSP have given it a steroid shot with an amicus brief. The Supremes have requested a response from the Acting SG. It's due on 3 July.

Of course, 3 July also happens to be the very day on which a cert petition would be due in Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). If the Acting SG were to seek cert in Denedo, it would become the instant favorite -- the Big Brown of the Golden CAAF Stakes.

If history is any guide, the SG will seek more time to respond to Stevenson and will seek more time to decide whether to seek cert in Denedo.

It seems likely that in its Stevenson response, the Acting SG will revisit the fascinating debate between the SG's office and Gene Fidell about whether the Supremes' cert jurisdiction over CAAF cases is limited to issues that CAAF granted or applies to the case as a whole.

Three other military justice cases are also in the Supremes' cert paddock. The cert petition in Wallace, No. 07-1403 [insert standard disclaimer here] -- the active pursuit inevitable discovery exception case -- is scheduled for conference this coming Thursday. The cert petition in Wilson, No. 07-1447, the mistake-of-age-defense-to-sodomy-with-a-child case, is scheduled for conference a week later on 19 June. And the longest shot of them all, Tillery, No. 07-11102, a pro se IFP cert petition, is scheduled for that same conference.

Of course, we won't know if we have a Golden CAAF Stakes winner until the Supremes announce the results of their first conference of the October 2008 term. So there's still plenty of time to place your metaphorical bets.


Anonymous said...

Very interesting argument at NMCCA today (at the JAG Conference) regarding A/C relationship and the detailing authority of DC of the Marine Corps. Good presentations by both sides.

Anonymous said...

For those not in attendance, can you please provide a summary? What are the two sides - pro/con?

John O'Connor said...

Give me a sawbuck on Denedo. I wonder if Stevenson bites the dust on whether or not jurisdiction exists.

Anonymous said...

The Amicus Brief link is wrong. Can you re-do? I want to read NIMJ's amicus.

JO'C - what's a "sawbuck"?

John O'Connor said...

Ten bucks.

Anonymous said...

So, I guess the "very interesting argument...regarding A/C relationship and the detailing authority of DC" will remain a mystery?

Anybody care to explain the nature of the debate?

Anonymous said...

The SDC of the MC detailed a reserve JA to a case that already had an active duty JA on the case. The CA objected to that on several grounds and refused to acknowledge the reservist as the detailed counsel until after the MJ found that the detailing was proper. There are lots more nuances than that but that is the start of the case.