tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post6173843264046024354..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Two CAAF opinionsDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-70596200091249960072008-05-31T22:11:00.000-04:002008-05-31T22:11:00.000-04:00The majority is cheating. The rule they announce ...The majority is cheating. The rule they announce is both practical and efficient, and the majority urges the best practices. It is an odd place for the Government to be to begin coordinating with the trial defense attorney at such an early stage of the appeal. It does seem to defy common sense to make a determination of IAC without such a crucial perspective. <BR/><BR/>But who is to blame for that lack of "evidence"? Surely not the court, nor the defense. So the reasoning set forth in the dissent is legally sound, and tighter.<BR/><BR/>I just think the majority has more experience with the big picture of appellate practices and their preferences are reflected in a case like this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-90657320689277560142008-05-31T19:43:00.000-04:002008-05-31T19:43:00.000-04:00And in Ortiz, CAAF reverses another sex offender c...And in Ortiz, CAAF reverses another sex offender case - 3 in one month. Don't worry CAAFlog, no mention here of CAAF being soft on sex offenders. I just want to encourage military trial judges to be less cavalier in their rulings -especially on member selection and any issue involving a constitutional right. Close cases on these issues need to be well-documented with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Or rule in favor of the defense and protect the record. These 3 reversals were lazy trial judge errors that didn't need to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-75064733198019056532008-05-30T23:44:00.000-04:002008-05-30T23:44:00.000-04:00What is happening in Melson? Are we now going to ...What is happening in Melson? Are we now going to resolve factual disputes through the use of affidavits? What is the reluctance to use a DuBay hearing to develop facts?<BR/><BR/>Affidavits may be more expedient, but there is no sustainable argument that they are more accurate than a DuBay hearing. The basis for Ginn, and DuBay, was to do away with post-trial factual determinations being based on competing affidavits.<BR/><BR/>This is not a good road upon which the CAAF is traveling. Now CCAs are to evaluate affidavits from appellants and TCD and determine which is more believable. This must be done in a post-trial hearing presided over by a MJ. Battling affidavits is not the answer. Also, contest ≠ rebut.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com