.jpg)
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Ask and ye shall receive?
Here's a link to Code 46's second request to enlarge the Judge Advocate General of the Navy's time to file a certificate of review in United States v. Wheeler, No. 08-5007/NA. Do our readers think it satisfies CAAF's condition that "absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time [beyond 1 July 2008] will be granted in this case"? United States v. Wheeler, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-5007/NA (C.A.A.F. June 23, 2008).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Well, the disclosure is more complete than the disclosures made by Air Force appellate defense counsel in seeking enlargement after enlargement in Roach.
For those of us with NMCI access who are walled-off from viewing the link, what was 46's justification?
Code 46 said: "How DARE you! Strict rules only apply to appellants. Not US. We are the United States Government! We are the good guys! Courts may enforce strict rules against appellants, but may not do so against us. We need to produce Power Point slides, consult, hold meetings, sip coffee, dream up a list of horribles, and think about it some more. These are extraordinary circumstances."
Code 46 said: "How DARE you! Strict rules only apply to appellants. Not US. We are the United States Government! We are the good guys! Courts may enforce strict rules against appellants, but may not do so against us. We need to produce Power Point slides, consult, hold meetings, sip coffee, dream up a list of horribles, and think about it some more. These are extraordinary circumstances."
Powerful in a sophmoric way.
Thanks for the help.
-Anon 1025
Anon 10:25,
They basically said that the JAG needs more time to decide and that there was an admin error at Code 46whereby appellate government counsel didn't learn right away of the partial grant of the last extension request.
1123 Anon. Don't you think there is a difference in asking for an enlargement of time and just filing something out of time without explanation? Strict rules apply to both sides. Several appellants have asked for and been granted second enlargements.
Here's one interesting aspect of the rule-based 30-day deadline for certification compared to the statute-based 60-day deadline for petitions. Bowles v. Russell would suggest that CAAF may extend the former but not the latter.
Internal rules are seen as more flexible. I think the bottom line, gov't or defense is that CAAF wants to move cases. The days of several enlargements are gone! THough it does seem a bit humorous when CAAF smacks down an MJ for not granting a defense continuance request at trial.
Trial time frames and appellate time frames are not comparable.
MJs should grant more time at trials, if necessary, more regularly than an appellate court needs to extend its deadlines.
The equities are not the same. 1) The trial lawyers are juggling witnesses, facts and law. The appellate court is mostly concerned about just the law. 2) Trials are the main event in our justice system, appeals are not.
Trials would be the "main event" if CCA did not have such broad power over fact AND law.
Post a Comment