In what can best be described as an amusing distraction from the real issues addressed by CAAF in their recent opinion in US v. Loving, 64 M.J. 132 (CAAF 2006), CAAF on Monday, Dec. 18, denied a Gov’t request to stay issuance of the mandate in US v. Loving (here). The obvious reason the Gov’t wanted to stay the mandate was to avoid the dance that has recently played out at CAAF concerning releasing prisoners from death row and/or post-trial confinement after issuance of a mandate by the Court. Recent indecision by the convening authority in US v. Dearing has led to a series of rebukes from the Court because the Gov’t continues to hold the accused in post-trial confinement, in a case where partial findings and the sentence were set aside, vice pre-trial/re-sentencing confinement (discussed more fully here and here and here and here). Hopefully the Army convening authority in-charge has his/her act together and can piece together a few MPs to move Loving from death row in light of CAAF’s mandate. (See commentary on the Dearing confinement here) Otherwise, Loving’s counsel may be talking about Dearing. BTW, the next time Dearing’s case makes CAAFlog this month, his counsel should probably get a set of steak knives. . . but, just keep those to yourself.