Thursday, March 26, 2009

CAAF releases two opinions

I'm low on both time and energy tonight, so I'll just give you the cites to CAAF's two newest opinions. I'll try to provide synopses over the weekend.

United States v. Forney, __ M.J. ___, No. 05-0647/NA (C.A.A.F. March 26, 2009) (plurality opinion by Judge Stucky, joined by Judge Baker, affirming Article 133 conviction for wrongfully possessing child pornography and holding that the accused officer could be convicted for possessing even virtual images of child pornography on government computers with Chief Judge Effron concurring in the result and Judge Erdmann, joined by Judge Ryan, dissenting).

United States v. Clayton, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0417/AR (C.A.A.F. March 26, 2009) (Judge Baker writing for the majority to reverse a finding of guilty and the sentence on Crawford v. Washington grounds with Judge Stucky separately concurring in part and in the result).

Today's daily journal update included a bumper crop of what I guess will be called "Rodriguez orders" directing appellants to demonstrate that their petitions shouldn't be dismissed as untimely filed. See United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009).

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Once upon a time I was in Ansbach. Nice to see the court martial system hasn't gotten any more professional.

I wonder if the Green Goose is still the same, too?

egn said...

I remember Forney going at the trial level, when I was at my first duty station. Can't believe it's still kicking around 8 years later.

Phil Cave said...

Not limited to Navy, and mostly Army.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the valuable insight, Phil.

Cloudesley Shovell said...

Having read Forney a few times, I conclude that the majority opinion(s) were animated mostly by an important legal principle:

Any rational factfinder would always conclude that a commissioned officer who downloads thousands of porn images (adult, child, cartoon, whatever) on a gov't computer, via a gov't network, while aboard a United States Navy warship, is on notice that such conduct violates Art. 133, and any rational factfinder would find said officer guilty.

(A Navy LTjg mouthing off to a USMC LtCol is another matter, but I digress.)

Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte said...

Cloudesley:

A Park-n-Ride is not a warship!

Anonymous said...

Not entirely sure I get CJE in Forney. Had he refrained from holding it HBRD, what he thinks about the law would be the holding of the case (Effron, Erdmann, Ryan). Instead we'll now have an awkward quasi-majority citation to explain that 3/5 judges think a defendant must be able to present civilian legality as a defense.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks you ain't really in the UK and France if you are both picking up on that case.

1) What a huge waste of resources; and

2) She should have been convicted.

Cloudesley Shovell said...

I cannot speak for my fellow Admiral, but I am in fact resting comfortably here in Westminster.

We merry band of dead admirals have our sources, you know. We hear things. Word gets around.