tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post116050337160455580..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Cunnigham v. California, a barometer for application of Apprendi to the military justice system?Dwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-1160692834392531022006-10-12T18:40:00.000-04:002006-10-12T18:40:00.000-04:00Sadly the oral arguments in Cunningham focused alm...Sadly the oral arguments in Cunningham focused almost exclusively on reasonableness and what is constitutionally reasonable. The case appears to be straying away from a barometer for military cases and becoming a torpedo for arguments about the constitutionality of federal sentences.Mike "No Man" Navarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11434921480452541955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-1160632052797816622006-10-12T01:47:00.000-04:002006-10-12T01:47:00.000-04:00CAAF has twice this year rejected Apprendi argumen...CAAF has twice this year rejected Apprendi arguments. In United States v. Wade, No. 06-0068/MC, CAAF granted the petition on the issue of post-trial delay, but did not grant the Apprendi argument. And in United States v. Williams, No. 04-0219/MC, the Court did the same thing. Williams was originally filed by Mike Navarre but was returned to CCA as a United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004) trailer case. It may be a good thing that CAAF has not taken these cases so the issue is still alive. <BR/><BR/>In a capital context, Apprendi issues have been repeated raised at NMCCA, but that court has yet to directly address it.Jason Groverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08292302029476070191noreply@blogger.com