CAAF’s Daily Journal holds much promise for future oral arguments and other interesting tidbits. First, the grants:

No. 06-0943/NA. U.S. v. Malcolm M. MACK. CCA 200400133. Review granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE’S DECISION TO SUBMIT THE ISSUE OF THE LAWFULNESS OF APPELLANT’S RESTRICTION ORDER TO THE MEMBERS WAS HARMLESS.

II. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT APPELLANT CONSPIRED WITH JOHN DOE TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT JOHN DOE EVER EXISTED.

III. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE LOWER COURT DECIDED APPELLANT’S CASE 1,830 DAYS AFTER HIS COURT-MARTIAL.

and

No. 07-5002/AR. U.S. v. Terrel L. LEWIS. CCA 20030835. The Judge Advocate General of the Army requests that action be taken with request to the following issue: the QP is rather confusing, suffice it so say it involves the right to self-defense when you don’t withdraw and the other party escalates the conflict.

and, finally,

No. 06-0860/AF. U.S. v. Jason A. RADER. CCA 369133. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL THAT WAS OBTAINED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH OF APPELLANT’S PERSONAL COMPUTER.

On post-trial delay the Army thinks they actually had a case of post-trial delay in No. 06-0889/AR. U.S. v. Daniel BAZAN. CAAF affirmed ACCA because the appellant could only piece together a year of delay. Those silly GIs, a year, that’s standard processing time.

Finally, in No. 06-0745/AR. U.S. v. Anton C. EDWIN, apparently the government conceded the arguments raised by the appellant regarding findings in their brief. CAAF set aside the conceded arguments and remanded for proceedings on sentence. A “Hooah” to Army Appellate Government for knowing when to pick their battles.

Comments are closed.