.jpg)
Monday, March 09, 2009
NMCCA's original Burk opinion
On Friday, we looked at NMCCA's opinion on reconsideration in United States v. Burk and the Government's request for additional time for the Judge Advocate General of the Navy to potentially certify the case to CAAF. Neither the original Burk opinion nor the opinion on reconsideration appeared to be available on any public web site. On Friday, we posted the opinion on reconsideration here. United States v. Burk, No. NMCCA 200800146 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2009) (per curiam). And now we have a copy of the original opinion, which we've posted here. United States v. Burk, No. 200800146 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 4, 2008) (per curiam).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Note, it was two years from the sentence to the opinion. The GAD counsel listed transfered from Code 46 approximately six months prior to this opinion. So, it took NMCCA six months to digest this ROT, give it absolutely no legal analysis other than "our own perception" and spit this out. No wonder it is per curium, I wouldn't want to put my name on it. That being said, CAAf's last two terms on implied bias should give the government enough pause when seeking certification. Wh the JAG would certify this is beyond me. If it is certified I put $10 that Judge Baker writes the opinion.
CAAFlog -- both links show the December opinion.
2107 Anon, thanks for the heads up. Have I mentioned that I'm an unfrozen caveman lawyer? Let me see if I can fix that.
1) Can't see a JAG cert in this one;
2) Both opinions are, as previously noted, weak on analysis; and
3) If JAG certs, NMCCA will be upheld, so I guess analysis really isn't required.
Post a Comment