Is it just my imagination or is the Daily Journal being updated far more regularly than in the past? If it’s not just my imagination running away with me, to quote the Temptations, can we get whoever increased the updating tempo to take a crack at the CCAs’ web sites? Or have the Air Force and Navy-Marine Corps Courts really done nothing since Halloween? (That would be quite a post-sugar high crash.)

7 Responses to “A daily Daily Journal?”

  1. Jason Grover says:

    I had also noticed the change in the previously “if-you-are-lucky-weekly-journal.” Perhaps it is easier for 3 Judges to vote on routine matters than 5. That does raise the question though- which previous Judge was most responsible for slowing it down?

  2. Dwight Sullivan says:

    I don’t think there was any judicial responsibility for the slow updates. You could go to the courthouse and see a hard copy of the orders as they come out. I assume that it was an issue with the web master in getting each day’s orders on the web site. My understanding — though I’m not sure of this — is that the CAAF web site is administered somewhere down at Maxwell Air Force Base.

  3. Anonymous says:

    You are correct about who administers the website.
    I vote on 11 December as the day that AFCCA is updated. Past indicators are that the site is updated monthly in the second full week.

  4. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Oh, that makes sense. :-)

    Isn’t one advantage of a web site that you can get info out instantaneously? Why would a court sit on its opinions for weeks?

  5. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Note that the Army Court web site and the Coast Guard Court web site each has an unpublished opinion dated YESTERDAY. Why don’t the other services post their decisions as promptly?

  6. No Man says:

    Apparently, it takes a licensed attorney to get opinions published quickly.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The Army has put a few new decisions up. This case is a very interesting one involving a rape charge, where the victim never testified. It’s a “corroboration,” is enough case.