Other daily journal activity

On Monday, CAAF granted the government's motion to enlarge the period of time in which the Judge Advocate General of the Navy may file a certificate for review to challenge NMCCA's ruling in United States v. Wheeler, 66 M.J. 590 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2008). United States v. Wheeler, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-5007/NA (C.A.A.F. June 23, 2008).(Wheeler was the NMCCA case finding Military Rule of Evidence 707 unconstitutional as applied.) But CAAF limited the period of enlargement to this Tuesday and provided that "absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case." Id. That will give the Judge Advocate General a total of 47 days in which to file a certificate.

We previously discussed the government's motion to enlarge the certification time in Wheeler here. And we discussed NMCCA's decision in the case here.

Another interesting procedural maneuver is JAJG's motion to withdraw its 10-day letter in United States v. Paulk. Paulk was the published Air Force Court decision rejecting an equal protection challenge to military trial and appellate judges' lack of a fixed term of office in the Air Force and Department of the Navy, in contrast to the Army and Coast Guard. See United States v. Paulk, __ M.J. ___, No. ACM 36952 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 20, 2008). We previously discussed the opinion here.

After initially responding to Major Paulk's supplement to his petition for grant of review with a 10-day letter, JAJG apparently reconsidered and decided to make a substantive filing. On Monday, CAAF granted JAJG's motion to withdraw its 10-day letter. United States v. Paulk, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0581/AF (C.A.A.F. June 23, 2008).