In today’s CAAF Journal we see:
No. 16-0615/AF. U.S. v. Zavian M.T. Addison. CCA S32287. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:
WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO NEW POST-TRIAL PROCESSING BECAUSE THE ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE’S RECOMMENDATION FAILED TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN APPELLANT’S CLEMENCY SUBMISSION.
If you are being prosecuted in the Air Force.
If your military defense counsel is not raising this issue.
WHETHER THE AFCCA ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT RELIEF WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS, “IF BASED ON YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ANY OFFENSE CHARGED, YOU MUST FIND HIM GUILTY,” WHERE SUCH AN INSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES v. MARTIN LINEN SUPPLY CO., 430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977), AND THERE IS INCONSISTENT APPLICATION BETWEEN THE SERVICES OF THE INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO WHEN MEMBERS MUST OR SHOULD CONVICT AN ACCUSED.
I am an unabashed advocate of DoD finding a way to have all military courts in a module in PACER, or that DoD develop something similar.
But, until that happens, military appellate court websites are a necessary tool for a military justice practitioner (TC/DC, SJA, MJ). So I do have a sense of frustration when they are down for longer than 24 hours. Here’s my why this is frustrating.
Every morning after my first coffee and cigar I open up the website for each of the military appellate courts. (My feedly feed brings me CAAFLog in the regular stream.)
Two items in the new Army Lawyer.
| Working with Civilian Counsel: A Military Practitioner’s Roadmap | |
| The Right to See: A Due Process Analysis of Access to Information in Army Adverse Administrative Proceedings |
After a lengthy down time, CAAF and AFCCA are back on line.
The military does not have mandatory minimum confinement sentences (and I hope we never have them). But this federal case is certainly interesting.
US v. Collins, No. 15-3236 (6th Cir. June 29, 2016) (available here).
It’s just sad that the public, and more importantly practitioners before the court have to rely on handouts from colleagues to get news out there about events in the CAAF.
Here’s another. In United States v. Commisso, CAAF has granted on the following issue.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE DEFENSE’S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL, THEREBY VIOLATING APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIS CASE DECIDED BY A PANEL OF FAIR AND IMPARTIAL MEMBERS, BECAUSE THREE PANEL MEMBERS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THEY HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE.
Since Denedo, and definitely since Padilla, military defense counsel must tell a client about the potential for deportation.
A former U.S. Marine from Jamaica who was convicted by special court-martial of having sex with a girl younger than 16 is eligible for deportation, the Third Circuit ruled.
Gurson Gourzong, a native of Jamaica, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1983, and thereafter joined the U.S. Marine Corps.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Panel”).
The National Post (Canada) reports:
The Canadian Forces has distributed 120,000 wallet-size cards to military personnel to remind them that sexual assault is an “inappropriate” behaviour.
The cards are to be carried by military staff on the job, including when they are sent overseas.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog