tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post8158640348535114082..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: CAAF grants review of a self-incrimination issueDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-89213672072198086352008-09-09T21:29:00.000-04:002008-09-09T21:29:00.000-04:00Look, all this petty bickering about gov't appella...Look, all this petty bickering about gov't appellate v. defense appellate is pointless. Can't we just all agree that gov't counsel are generally mouth-breathers who were denied slots in defense appellate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-90535917251461688102008-09-08T19:46:00.000-04:002008-09-08T19:46:00.000-04:00It's all fun and games until someone loses and eye...It's all fun and games until someone loses and eye..or in the appellate world, someone is accused of IAC. Then it seems the government is the best friend of defense counsel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-75074860499072089722008-09-08T18:42:00.000-04:002008-09-08T18:42:00.000-04:00To government attorneys credit, I have seen them r...To government attorneys credit, I have seen them recover expertly after they first pee themselves at the podium. After that bit of nervousness hits the floor, they generally do a great job of reading their prepared argument to the judges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-40571418596202641282008-09-08T18:40:00.000-04:002008-09-08T18:40:00.000-04:00Anon Sun 5:31...where do you get this information?...Anon Sun 5:31...where do you get this information?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01091271207452763627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-43794532992350630542008-09-08T16:52:00.000-04:002008-09-08T16:52:00.000-04:00If that is (which I really doubt) Code 46's policy...If that is (which I really doubt) Code 46's policy, to oppose argument in cases which they feel don't merit argument why would TJAG be "livid?" Why would hte Judge Advocate General of the Navy be upset at Navy GAD doing its job?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-91434489301775431412008-09-08T16:20:00.000-04:002008-09-08T16:20:00.000-04:00Funny, I never found CAAFlog to be the appropriate...Funny, I never found CAAFlog to be the appropriate venue to disseminate OJAG policy. If it is, just FOIA the document or better yet tell him. If you have the ear of the JAG I encourage you, beg you to tell him whatever you want. What you will find, despite your conspiracy theories to the contrary is that the government probably believes that they have answered the court's questions.<BR/><BR/>In all of my CLE with appellate court judges in state and federal courts I routinely hear the judges say the disfavor argument. It substantially adds little to the process other than the "Oh gee, look at me" factor. If it is not addressed in the pleadings than you've done a poor job in your brief. That being said, I doubt the JAG reads this blog so I encourage you to request mast and ask him. Otherwise...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-14667635431302525552008-09-08T15:46:00.000-04:002008-09-08T15:46:00.000-04:00In all of these comments I have not read ANY of th...In all of these comments I have not read ANY of them that deny that Code 46 has a policy to oppose oral argument at NMCCA. If this is indeed true, than someone should tell the JAG who would be livid to hear this. Perhaps I will tell him myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-86059494427578191732008-09-08T10:30:00.000-04:002008-09-08T10:30:00.000-04:00It was pretty funny when a defense counsel passed ...It was pretty funny when a defense counsel passed out at the podium during a CAAF argument two terms ago. If that is the standard I will take looking "uptight" any day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-66626983495582858632008-09-08T10:06:00.000-04:002008-09-08T10:06:00.000-04:00ANON 10:03 is a bit touchy about the fact that som...ANON 10:03 is a bit touchy about the fact that some of us defense types joke about the fact that GOVT counsel often (not always, but often) look like they are gonna uninate in thier uniforms at arguement. Sorry, but that is just how it appears. As far as the breif "name changing" thing- it is a joke about the fact taht even if the Defense wirtes a massive (maybe lame, but massive) brief the GOVT can just file a "not error, but if error- harmless, if not harmless - Sales it. Now that is easy, and funny. Come on - admit it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-88425737855121617432008-09-08T10:03:00.000-04:002008-09-08T10:03:00.000-04:00There is no Army GAD policy to oppose oral argumen...There is no Army GAD policy to oppose oral argument in all cases. The problem is defense attorneys consistently submit oral argument requests in cases that are extremely straight-forward so that they can either "practice," beef up their OERs, or fleece their clients for some more money (actual justifications I've heard from defense attorneys). Opposition to motions for oral argument are based on each individual case. If a case is worth arguing, there is no opposition.<BR/><BR/>This obsession many attorneys have with oral argument is overblown. While I think it is one of the most fun aspects of appellate litigation, the whole point of oral argument is to assist the Court with resolving issues and answer questions they may have that could not be addressed through the pleadings. It is not to hear the sound of our own voices or to prove what great lawyers we are to the rest of the world. With 50+ page briefs (not including reply briefs) we should be able to resolve most issues with our writing skills. While there is value in oral argument, it should be the exception, not the rule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-43829310064729918032008-09-08T07:48:00.000-04:002008-09-08T07:48:00.000-04:00Anon 10:03Your generalization about government cou...Anon 10:03<BR/><BR/>Your generalization about government counsel at oral argument is nothing but your opinion. And we know what opinions are like. I can clearly say the same thing about defense counsel.<BR/><BR/>Regarding policy, if you think there is one, just ask a government counsel. It is probably that argument, though exciting adds a layer of unknown as when a judge asks about a defense AOE that was raised in a brief but not specified, or when a judge asks about a series of cases that are not related to the issues specified or a host of other reasons.<BR/><BR/>Your drive by about the government being "silly" is about as persuasive as the rest of your argument. And the last point makes no sense when discussing argument. Why would the government oppose oral argument on a case based upon changing names and units in a brief? Nonsensical, the brief is filed so there is no changing of anything. Either you are trying to tie the writing of a brief to the argument of the case which is different or you have very little experience in the appellate system.<BR/><BR/>Finally, do you think the government has any sway with any court? First, CAAF specifies, independently all their cases that go to argument with no input on argument from either side. Secondly, CCAs may accept such input but the court makes that decision and not the government. Based upon your previous rational, there would be no cases up for argument as the government would oppose them all and the court, by default, would demur to their position. Unless and until you read every pleading by the government on their position about argument I suggest you are mistaken in your position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-64265952758643920672008-09-07T22:03:00.000-04:002008-09-07T22:03:00.000-04:00A few thoughts:1) The NMMCA policy of opposing or...A few thoughts:<BR/><BR/>1) The NMMCA policy of opposing oral argument, which is also an Army GAD policy I believe, is not so much about lean six sigma as it is about keeping the gov't attorneys from peeing their dress uniforms. I've never seen a more uncomfortable (and not coincidentally), unpersuasive group than gov't counsel. Luckily, they have every advantage on appeal.<BR/><BR/>2) I wonder if there any exceptions to this policy, or if a pro forma opposition motion is filed for every defense request for oral argument. It would be silly for the gov't to oppose oral argument in an obviously important case, but then again, the gov't is very silly.<BR/><BR/>3) Lean six sigma is not a buzz word - it's a methodology used in the business world. But that matters not. The real question is whether it has any application in the military justice world. In this particular instance, i.e., requesting oral argument, it only makes sense if you buy into the position that oral argument makes no difference. Plus, I'm sure it takes the gov't a long, long time to change the names, units, etc. in their stock briefs.<BR/><BR/>4) Bob Costas is short...almost "Little People, Big World" short...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-28577529547514746312008-09-07T21:58:00.000-04:002008-09-07T21:58:00.000-04:00We should hold an oral argument kaizen for the 46e...We should hold an oral argument kaizen for the 46ers to see if they can get better results by only strategically opposing oral arguments vs. blanket opposition.Mike "No Man" Navarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11434921480452541955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-16525855982928817402008-09-07T20:15:00.000-04:002008-09-07T20:15:00.000-04:00Cloudesley, you're channeling me.Cloudesley, you're channeling me.John O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014476389355562158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-13598915871496782332008-09-07T18:11:00.000-04:002008-09-07T18:11:00.000-04:00CAAFlog--whatever the policy concerns of Navy's Ap...CAAFlog--whatever the policy concerns of Navy's Appellate Gov't Division may be, that Division does not control the Court's docket. NMCCA decides which cases get oral argument. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps if the CCAs did not have to spend so much time on mandatory review of guilty-plea cases, they could spend more time on the important ones.Cloudesley Shovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13344314546798687667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-56651691014562730392008-09-07T17:55:00.000-04:002008-09-07T17:55:00.000-04:00Oh, great. Management buzz words are trumping the...Oh, great. Management buzz words are trumping the quest for justice.Dwight Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-53120467382192147112008-09-07T17:31:00.000-04:002008-09-07T17:31:00.000-04:00Code 46's policy is to oppose motions for oral arg...Code 46's policy is to oppose motions for oral argument at NMCCA. I supect that this is because the time spent preparing for oral argument in any given case constitutes waste in a lean six sigma environment. The individual attorneys, however, love oral argument and are excited when the opportunity arises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-58492628906625788382008-09-07T15:30:00.000-04:002008-09-07T15:30:00.000-04:00Regarding the use of initials in court opinions--N...Regarding the use of initials in court opinions--Never, I say, except in the rarest and most unique of circumstances (child victims and witnesses, perhaps, but not adults). Absolutely never in the case of officials involved in the military justice system (judges, attorneys, police, SJAs, CAs, etc.) <BR/><BR/>If you always use initials, people like TSgt Edward Schlegel, USAF, would escape scrutiny. TSgt Schlegel is mildly notorious for conducting illegal searches in two separate cases, resulting in two appellate reversals, a fact specifically noted by CAAF in US v. Conklin, 63 M.J. 333, 339 n. 38 (CAAF 2006). ("We are mindful of the fact that [TSgt Schlegel's] inspection of a personal computer on a different occasion has been the subject of appellate criticism.").Cloudesley Shovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13344314546798687667noreply@blogger.com