tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post3038414593663318081..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: A Moreno effect? (part deux)Dwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-85667124492001626572007-01-07T12:28:00.000-05:002007-01-07T12:28:00.000-05:00And of the non-published opinions, were there some...And of the non-published opinions, were there some that were worthy of publication -- that fit the generally accepted principles of why an appellate court publishes an opinion? For example, the AFCCA wrote an unpublished opinion a short while ago addressing the most excellent case of Randolph v. Georgia (a particular favorite of mine because it puts third-party consent vice first party denial of consent issues into a proper perspective). AFCCA did not publish, even though it seemed to be the first Service court to comment. Looking at the opinion they could have been the first to adopt Randolph into military practice. But, there appeared to be prudential reasons not to publish, and those reasons are unrelated to Moreno. So, can there ever be a meaningful connection between published/unpublished/ Moreno? On a different note for "unpublished" opinions and their effect would be the use of unpublished opinions. I'm increasingly seeing Trial Counsel in one Service (not mine, and they don't have more boats than the Navy or more airplanes than the Air Force), arguing unpublished opinions as dispositive.Phil Cavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14474250926717405497noreply@blogger.com