Tuesday, May 12, 2009

CAAF releases Sanders opinion

CAAF made short work of Sanders, a case in which it heard oral argument less than a month ago. In a six-page per curiam opinion, CAAF held that any potential error in the admission during the government's sentencing case of a letter written by the accused wasn't prejudicial. United States v. Sanders, __ M.J. ___, No. 09-0013/AF (C.A.A.F. May 12, 2009) (per curiam). If 2008 was the Year of Jurisdiction, this term is starting to look like the Year of Narrow Opinions. I hasten to add, to paraphrase Seinfeld, not that there's anything wrong with that.

8 comments:

Cossio said...

I was confined with SSgt. Sanders, as well as that Capt. Brown (the TC that tried to have his wife killed) while I was at Lackland.

SSgt. Sanders...Noone knew what he was charged with until he was found guilty...It was a suprise for all of us. Without passing judgement on his guilt or innocence...He was always on his best behavior, very upbeat, and you would never even guess what he was in there for..."Raping" prostitutes.

Anyways. I remember conversations with him, he LIKED the judge based on favorable pretrial rulings.

I asked if his decision to go judge-alone was wise, considering I did the same and got hammered, but he assured me that "juries are stupid" and that the Judge appeared sypathetic to him.

Apparently the Government had problems producing the witnesses in pretrial motions.

I was also there for the attempted suicide, and when the abluance came in the middle of the knight...And when he said goodbye to his wife and two children...Very tragic.

Anonymous said...

......
He was always on his best behavior, very upbeat, and you would never even guess what he was in there for..."Raping" prostitutes.
......

Nice use of quotation marks! Cossio, you must be real smooth with the ladies!...I guess its the same way in prison, its not really sexual assault, the weaker guy is just a “boyfriend” in exchange for protection.

Anonymous said...

Hey stupid. Yes you dummy.

I would normally leave your apples to organes, or in this case prisoners forced to cohabit with sexual predators and are forced to have sex vs women willing to sell themeselves arguement alone but something strikes me as particularly ignorant on your part.

You seem not grasp the concept that these women entered his car with the intent to have sex with him.

But that's ok, you're a piece of garbage who's opinion means nothing, always did, and always will mean nothing.

Cossio said...

Also on point, he was charged with forcable sodomy, not "rape", however the legal office had rape as the offense when they sent the inbound list.

Anonymous said...

............
You seem not grasp the concept that these women entered his car with the intent to have sex with him.
...........

Nice...Cossio...brillant legal reasoning!

dreadnaught said...

It must be very embarrassing for a convicted forcible sodomite to be confused with being a rapist.

Anonymous said...

And yet forcible sodomy is distinguishable from rape. Your subtle sarcasm is amusing, however I do not wish to enter a diatribe as to whether ssgt Sanders "raped" prostitutes who inteded to have intercourse with him as long as they got paid.

Thx anon, I'm known for my legal reasoning. I'm sure your correct, but if i were to except your inept reasoning I would have to question why he wasn't prosecuted for rape instead of sodomy...the legal office at lackland must enjoy going for sodomy instead of rape which carries a bigger stigma and greater punishment (death).

Didn't know they were such nice guys.

- Cossio

Anonymous said...

Only someone in a coma would think that it was "subtle sarcasm"