Tuesday, June 05, 2007

CAAFlog predicts future, C.A.A.F. grants review of Falcon

On November 2, 2006, CAAFlog posted about the NMCCA's published decision in U.S. v. Falcon. In Falcon, the NMCCA further split the courts of criminal appeals when it joined the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals in holding that the gamblers defense does not apply to bad check offenses charged under Article 134. CAAFlog then wrote. "This disagreement among the CCAs seems ripe for CAAF's resolution."

CAAFlog has spoken. The court granted review of two issues centering around the NMCCA's resolution of this very issue. I predict that the gamblers defense will go the way of the McOmber right to counsel. However, Falcon will still win on the second issue, whether the military judge was wrong to accept Falcon's guilty plea when he knew he was a diagnosed pathological gambler.


Anonymous said...

Just below the Falcon grant on the Daily Journal, CAAF approved the new Rules changes. I'll have to post something later about the Rules, though I think CAAFlog beat that horse well past its TOD.

Anonymous said...

The good thing about the first granted issue in Falcon is that it highlights the existence of a split among the CCAs. All too often it is impossible to tell which of Rule 21(b)(5)'s standards has led the Court to grant review. Are appellate defense counsel invoking specific provisions of the rule?