tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post5473433581341769844..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Roger Williams University Law Review's military law symposium issueDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-91726693031511333472007-10-08T20:18:00.000-04:002007-10-08T20:18:00.000-04:00With the caveat that I haven't had a chance to rea...With the caveat that I haven't had a chance to read Gene's essay (for the reasons CAAFlog notes in his post), I will say that, all respect to Gene, I view leaving appellate litigation in the hands of detailed defense counsel as an uncommonly bad idea. There are two reasons that I hold this view.<BR/><BR/>First, my experience when I was a trial counsel was that trial defense counsel, while there were exceptions, just weren't fully versed in the complexities of appellate case law in the way one would expect an attorney who is detailed solely to appellate litigation. Indeed, because there is a tendency to give trial billets to relatively new lawyers, even the good ones do all they can to get up to speed on trial litigation to say nothing of appellate litigation. So I have grave doubts about the quality of appellate representation an accused would receive from his trial defense counsel.<BR/><BR/>Second, the constant shifting of personnel would create issues beyond the threshold competence issue described above. How would an accused feel if his trial defense counsel (and current appellate counsel) is now an SJA or trial counsel, or is currently deplayed to Iraq or on a float? Or if the DC is immersed in a capital case and (arguably) neglecting his clients on appeal? I suspect in these cases there would have to be a withdrawal of counsel and assignment of a new, local defense counsel who would handle the appeal. If that would be the protocol, just how many accuseds would still have their defense counsel able to represent them when their case goes to CAAF two years later? And are we going to fly these counsel in from across the globe for appellate arguments? You might end up, then, with a bunch of trial lawyers, with fleeting appellate exposure and experience, litigating appeals for cases that somebody else actually tried a year or more earlier.<BR/><BR/>I do believe, though, that leaving appeals to the trial defense counsel would have the potentially salutary effect of reducing the number of IAC cases considerably . . . .<BR/><BR/>On a number of the other issues highlighted in CAAFlog's post, I tend to agree with what are stated to be Gene's observations of structural flaws in the military appellate system.John O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014476389355562158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-71665592605814971392007-10-08T20:08:00.000-04:002007-10-08T20:08:00.000-04:00Interesting how close in time the lecture was to t...Interesting how close in time the lecture was to the Moreno decision.Marcus Fultonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14070796580668712006noreply@blogger.com