tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post1615793570461157841..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: New CAAF opinion: United States v. MackieDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-1958145713715103182008-04-22T18:31:00.000-04:002008-04-22T18:31:00.000-04:00Re certain NMCCA judges...I concur their language ...Re certain NMCCA judges...I concur their language has been rude and unprofessional in the past to the point of embarrassing which is indicative of not placing military justice personnel on the bench. Just because someone is a great SJA does not mean they will make a great judge, trial or appellate. And No Man, the judges to which (I believe) you refer are no longer at NMCCA...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-75181802207498792702008-04-22T14:06:00.000-04:002008-04-22T14:06:00.000-04:00Anon at 9:56--There are only three statutory ways ...Anon at 9:56--<BR/><BR/>There are only three statutory ways to get a case before CAAF. First, death penalty case. Second, certification by one of the service JAGs. Third, petition by the accused.<BR/><BR/>The only way for the Gov't to appeal an adverse decision by a CCA is to certify to CAAF. In fact, if the gov't wants to, it can certify a case where the gov't prevailed at the CCA. There is no limitation.<BR/><BR/>As a practical matter, the gov't typically does not certify cases unless there are important issues at stake. A major reason would be to protect the JAG's reputation before CAAF. If the gov't deserved to lose at the CCA, there probably won't be any certification. If, on the other hand, it's an important or hotly contested, or original issue, certification is more likely. Thus, although there is no rule against certifying every single case, as a practical matter, it is not done. <BR/><BR/>CAAF can also drop hints, as CAAFlog has pointed out, that the gov't should not have pursued a particular case. None of the recent cases, nor any in CAAF's history, I am sure, ever breathe a word of actual criticism to a JAG for certifying an issue, since it is the JAG's absolute right.<BR/><BR/>I also agree with the other commenter that CCA judges may on occasion use unjudicious language about issues raised. The accused has an appeal as of right. Deal with it. That being said, cluttering a brief with shotgun cut-n-paste issues can detract from stronger arguments.Cloudesley Shovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13344314546798687667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-21185823388340291682008-04-22T09:56:00.000-04:002008-04-22T09:56:00.000-04:00Isn't certification supposed to be for issues of s...Isn't certification supposed to be for issues of system-wide importance, as opposed to for use whenever the government loses?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-63297146499900244812008-04-22T08:20:00.000-04:002008-04-22T08:20:00.000-04:00Frivolous certification. Maybe eliminate the Judg...Frivolous certification. Maybe eliminate the Judge Advocate Generals along with the CCAs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-21635202705294529752008-04-22T07:20:00.000-04:002008-04-22T07:20:00.000-04:00The AF Judge Advocate should just be happy she did...The AF Judge Advocate should just be happy she didn't have to take her certified issue to NMCCA (or at least certain panels of NMCCA). That court may have made comments about the AFJAG's competence and whether raising such issues violated the AFJAG's ethical obligations. If any NMCCA judge wants to counter that, I would be glad to hear your response. However, the practice of certain NMCCA judges scolding only one side of the bar, the defense, for arguments they make deserves comment-and in my opinion negative comment. I find that practice both not in line with rules governing the Art. III judiciary, which I know NMCCA is not, and just lacking in civility. This case just shows that either side can raise arguments, totally within the bounds of the ethical practice of the law, but that are ultimately disposed of quite easily by the judiciary. The end result does not mean that in raising the issue anything improper occurred. <BR/><BR/>In any event, the more I think about that appellate process proposal, the more eliminating the CCAs grows on me.Mike "No Man" Navarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11434921480452541955noreply@blogger.com