tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post8354349171320962445..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Is timely post-trial review a right without a remedy?Dwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-37907629557304114272008-10-25T18:55:00.000-04:002008-10-25T18:55:00.000-04:00Anon 0552 - VERY good points. I hope that Dwight'...Anon 0552 - VERY good points. I hope that Dwight's crew can convince CAAF to grant review here. This is also a good case for Amicus Briefs!Dew_Processhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952551772411097184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-70909221986475764382008-10-25T17:52:00.000-04:002008-10-25T17:52:00.000-04:00Ironically, this decision has the effect of encour...Ironically, this decision has the effect of encouraging truly egregious post-trial processing because if the CA or court simply waits long enough accused is out of confinement, no meaningful relief is provided and no sentence reduction. This decision wouldn't make sense to a third-grader, nor should to experienced counsel and judges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-72073887667325723902008-10-25T16:54:00.000-04:002008-10-25T16:54:00.000-04:00"The CCA correctly applied Rodriguez-Rivera and fo..."The CCA correctly applied Rodriguez-Rivera and found there was no reasonable, meaningful relief available. Please dismount from your high horse, Caaflog."<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>This is turning into "Defend Dwight" day..... but, he is one of the "cronies!"<BR/><BR/>Anon 0653 - there was indeed reasonable and meaningful relief available to the Court of Criminal Affirmation, one that would eliminate the problem of excessive post-trial delay.<BR/><BR/>The Court could have appointed a Special Master to investigate those persons responsible for the excessive delay, and to prefer charges under Article 98, which is ONE of the purposes behind the enactment of that Statute, not to mention some serious dereliction of duty!Dew_Processhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952551772411097184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-27715619934319932612008-10-25T16:37:00.000-04:002008-10-25T16:37:00.000-04:00"And CAAFlog, this blog would be much more credibl..."And CAAFlog, this blog would be much more credible if you and your defense-hack cronies would present the whole story on some of these issues, e.g., the incentive dirtbags have to drag out their appeals."<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>My my! Now there's a frustrated Trial Counsel, who seems to have slept through Con Law.<BR/><BR/>I am proud of my "defense-hack cronies," John Adams, who defended Captain Preston and the British troops accused in the Boston Massacre; or Abe Lincoln who successfully defended numerous clients; or Charlie Swift who courageously defended Hamdan.<BR/><BR/>I've been doing this for a LONG time, I made an appearance in 9 MJ, which was 4 years into my AD. I have never had a client be happy with Appellate Leave - especially after they're done doing their "time." <BR/><BR/>And one more thing anon 1750, everytime you hear or sing the "Star Spangled Banner," cogitate on the fact that another of my "defense-hack cronies" wrote it, Francis Scott Key, after successfully negotiating the release of an American POW the Brits had captured!Dew_Processhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952551772411097184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-32696912596926795332008-10-25T11:33:00.000-04:002008-10-25T11:33:00.000-04:000818 Anon,The defense attorneys you speak of are p...0818 Anon,<BR/>The defense attorneys you speak of are protecting rights afforded in a document you may have heard of -- the Constitution (it's the same document you swore an oath to protect). And the "technicalities" you mentioned wouldn't exist if the Government JAGs and legal officers followed the rules. Finally, the defense attorneys have an ethical duty to force the government to follow those "technicalities" (otherwise known as rights afforded by law or regulation), or they would lose their license to practice law, and their commission in the service.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-49337163347534605502008-10-25T08:17:00.000-04:002008-10-25T08:17:00.000-04:00Being a legal officer, not a JAG, I am always inte...Being a legal officer, not a JAG, I am always interested to read this blog. The military defense attorneys I know (and I have worked with a lot of them) seem to relish in keeping criminals in the service through trickery and technicalities. Yet they wear the uniform and claim to be honorable officers. Can anyone explain this to me? Do they really want these people in the same service they are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-46879794447357661012008-10-25T06:17:00.000-04:002008-10-25T06:17:00.000-04:00Cloudesly, don't the waters at or near the piers a...Cloudesly, don't the waters at or near the piers at Naval Station Norfolk belong to the Confederacy? If so, NMCCA got it right.<BR/><BR/>Oh, Fri Oct 24, 05:50:00 PM EDT Anon, you are projecting. You know deep down that you yourself have committed criminal acts in the past. Sure, the world does not know about these secret crimes, but you know (whether it was underage drinking, stealing that candy bar, speeding, parking in that handicapped space, being late for work, lying, whatever). You got away with it. So we understand your unconstrained need to yell at your other "dirtbag" self. Your moral smugness speaks in its own language.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-63030904498213545062008-10-24T20:34:00.000-04:002008-10-24T20:34:00.000-04:001750 Anon, Baited breath? Have they been eating wo...1750 Anon, <BR/><BR/>Baited breath? Have they been eating worms?<BR/><BR/>While I reject your crass lumping of true criminals, malcontents, servicemembers who made mistakes, and -- yes -- some small number of servicemembers who were wrongly convicted into the collective label "dirtbags," in fact this blog has often called attention to the fact that many servicemembers on appellate leave can profit from that status. For example, we looked at and article providing some actual Navy-Marine Corps dollar figures here:<BR/><BR/>http://caaflog.blogspot.com/2008/05/some-interesting-appellate-leave-stats.html<BR/><BR/>And I have offered the reduction of the number of servicemembers on appellate leave as one of many reasons to streamline the military appellate review system by, among other steps: (1) eliminating the CCAs and thereby creating a faster, more efficient one-level sub-SCOTUS review system; and (2) adopting the JO'Cian waiver of appellate review proposal.<BR/><BR/>I've spent about half of my legal career as an active duty, reserve, or civilian military appellate defense counsel. And I can definitively say that there are some servicemembers who really do want to speed up execution of their discharges and are harmed by failure to obtain their DD-214s. For example, some servicemembers have job offers from employers who would give them a job if they produced a DD-214 regardless of what it says on the DD-214. The employer's concern isn't the characterization of discharge or reenlistment code, but rather obtaining some assurance that if the employer spends thousands of dollars training the applicant, the money won't walk out the door because the military then grabs the applicant back and sends him or her to Iraq. There are many other servicemembers on appellate leave -- and certainly a far larger group than the first -- who take advantage of their appellate leave status to obtain military benefits, such as health care. And there is a very large group of servicemembers on appellate leave who are indifferent to their appellate leave status.Dwight Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-79053084821321767172008-10-24T17:50:00.000-04:002008-10-24T17:50:00.000-04:00Criminals don't deserve relief. This whole idea o...Criminals don't deserve relief. This whole idea of speedy post-trial review is a sham. Why? B/c every one of these leaches on society LOVES their appellate status b/c it confers a lot of benefits. Don't believe for a second they want the process to hurry up so they can get their DD214s that their future Wal-Mart employers await with baited breath. Give me a break.<BR/><BR/>And CAAFlog, this blog would be much more credible if you and your defense-hack cronies would present the whole story on some of these issues, e.g., the incentive dirtbags have to drag out their appeals. You need more bloggers like J. O'Connor to make this a respectable site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-40858440368793307602008-10-24T14:37:00.000-04:002008-10-24T14:37:00.000-04:00Cloudsley,How might one find the Wood opinion onli...Cloudsley,<BR/>How might one find the Wood opinion online?egnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780985351955990209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-55404599383111761122008-10-24T12:30:00.000-04:002008-10-24T12:30:00.000-04:00Anon 0919: Is there anything that a creative defen...Anon 0919: Is there anything that a creative defense lawyer won't try?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-63720915465856739282008-10-24T10:21:00.000-04:002008-10-24T10:21:00.000-04:00Lest you think that the CCAs are just lap dogs for...Lest you think that the CCAs are just lap dogs for their gov't masters, see US v. Wood, a recent unpublished Navy opinion.<BR/><BR/>Instead of charging under Art. 134 clause 1 or 2, the gov't charged Wood with possessing child porn in violation of 18 USC 2252A(a)(5)(A). The place of possession was on board the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), pierside at Naval Station Norfolk. Wood pleaded guilty.<BR/><BR/>NMCCA set aside the findings and sentence because "the record is devoid of any evidence or of any judicially noticed material that establishes the waters at or near the piers at Naval Station Norfolk are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States."Cloudesley Shovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13344314546798687667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-78676752765603482532008-10-24T09:22:00.000-04:002008-10-24T09:22:00.000-04:00At least the court members are honest that they ar...At least the court members are honest that they are rubber stampers who would never go against their government masters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-88781087913070122152008-10-24T09:19:00.000-04:002008-10-24T09:19:00.000-04:00Were you seriously advocating for windfall relief ...Were you seriously advocating for windfall relief in this case and thinking that would be considered? Maybe a prayer punitive damages will make its way into your next pleading? It was amusing though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-58208889989630120712008-10-24T06:53:00.000-04:002008-10-24T06:53:00.000-04:00The CCA correctly applied Rodriguez-Rivera and fou...The CCA correctly applied Rodriguez-Rivera and found there was no reasonable, meaningful relief available. Please dismount from your high horse, Caaflog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-74330588003122481192008-10-24T00:38:00.000-04:002008-10-24T00:38:00.000-04:00"You keep using that word. I do not think it mean..."You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."<BR/><BR/>-- Inigo MontoyaChristopher Mathewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613318712384842689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-39330172804812923872008-10-24T00:02:00.000-04:002008-10-24T00:02:00.000-04:00Talk about a dog barking with no bite. So the AFC...Talk about a dog barking with no bite. So the AFCCA finds prejudice under the Wingo factor, but no prejudice otherwise? How did this become a published opinion? And am I wrong or did the AFCCA just comment that advising a client of a percentage of winning at trial is appropriate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com