Monday, November 24, 2008

NMCCA's opinion in Hickman

Here's a link to NMCCA's unpublished opinion in United States v. Hickman, No. NMCCA 200800529 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2008) (per curiam), which is now pending before CAAF. Even though CAAF granted review only last Thursday, it has scheduled the case for oral argument on 15 December.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can anyone amplify the procedural posture of the case? The Government brought the Article 62 appeal to NMCCA & won. How did it get from NMCCA to CAAF? It appears by the tone of the issue granted that the accused appealed the NMCCA Article 62 ruling. But, isn't Article 62 designed for interlocutory appeals by the gov't in the limited cases where the gov't wouldn't otherwise have a judicial remedy? Absent this appeal, the accused would still be able to litigate the issue at trial & then, if convicted, appeal through usual processes. If CAAF granted the issue on the accused's appeal, isn't that subverting the intent of the limited interlocutory appeals by the Government allowed by Article 62?

Eponymous said...

I think Anonymous (at 0848) must be a Rip Van Wynkle type--he (she?)has clearly just woken up from a long slumber that he has been in for the past year. Welcome back! Much has been discussed at CAAF during your repose! Check out Lopez de Victoria (66 MJ 67). Is this "subverting the intent" of Article 62? Good question. For discussion of whether CAAF is, of late, overstepping its jurisdictional prerogatives in search of more, um, lebensraum, read up on the Denedo case.

Oh, and you're not going to believe the presidential election we just had. Q: what do you know about Wasilla, Alaska?

Cloudesley Shovell said...

Anon at 848 am--

Nothing wrong with your theory, but CAAF disagrees with you. CAAF has held that it has jurisdiction over Art. 62 appeals even when the accused is the one appealing the decision of the CCA. See United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 MJ 67 (CAAF 2008).

Bill C. said...

I'm not the brightest bulb in the box but Judge Beal's decision seems absolutely correct.

Anonymous said...

Judge Beal's decision seems absolutely incorrect actually.

Anonymous said...

Thanks again for your input Col Puleo!

Anonymous said...

Thanks Cloudsley. I'll assume then that the accused appealed the Article 62 ruling to CAAF, and obviously Lopez de Victoria answers the jurisdictional issue once the grant is sought.

As a long-time reader, but first-time poster, I also wanted to also thank you for the tone of your response. The well-articulated viewpoints of the experienced contributors to CAAFlog are what set this blog apart from the usual drivel so prevalent in the blogosphere. I find the postings on CAAFlog to be primarily professional, well-articulated, and academically sound discourse, that, though I may not agree with every analysis, at least engenders respect for the authors & stimulates thought on the issues.

As for Eponymous, your condescending sarcasm was taken for what it is - the ramblings of an embittered elitist frustrated by the fact that not everyone shares his (or her?) world view (see miy earlier comment about drivel in the blogosphere).

Anon 08:48

Anonymous said...

Some people like to debate themselves anonymously it seems.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Sullivan (aka CAAFlog),

W/r/t Anon at 09:46: This is the second personal attack on the same named individual in as many weeks. How about exercising some editorial discretion and removing those occasional posts that cross the bounds of propriety. The military justice appellate bar is unfortunately, rather small. Empty personal attacks represent more than mere clutter in this arena. Posts like Anon at 09:46 have no place here.

This website is a godsend, but like all public forums, it too needs boundaries. When our collective efforts at self-regulating break down, you (Dwight Sullivan) become de facto policeman. Sorry. If that seems unpalatable or too personally burdensome, let's shift to requiring accounts vice anonymous posting.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:52, dude, relax, it's a blog. It can do without any thought or humor censor police. Your remedy - ignore the stupid comments. If it took 5 judges 70 pages to define the word exclude in Wuterich, imagine how long the opinion would be in defining "the bounds of propriety."

John O'Connor said...

Would somebody really be offended by the joke by Anon 0946? If I were the target of that, which is not really an attack anyway, I think I would find it funny.

I'm not a fan of anonymous posting (I prefer eponymous posting for reasons I have stated before) but wasn't that just a little good-natured jab?

Anonymous said...

cert granted in denedo

Anonymous said...

Anon 0946, suggest you read the findings of fact and the ROT then when you are completely educated on the issues you can spew forth your view point. Until then you are marginalized.

Anonymous said...

All these catty comments -- it's like the legal version of Dungeons & Dragons. Yes I'm making this post at 2352 on a Friday night, but seriously guys -- get a life. . .

Dwight Sullivan said...

Uhm, 2354 Anon, last night was aWEDNESDAY (as the night before Thanksgiving generally is). :-)

Anonymous said...

Although one individual indicated that we should not be able to post anonymously, I think it should be allowed. It provides me with a pathetic sense of comfort to think more people are interested in this than the 16 losers like me.