Comments on: FY06 Annual Report http://www.caaflog.com/2007/03/11/fy06-annual-report/ Covering the Military Justice System Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:34:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: gene fidell http://www.caaflog.com/2007/03/11/fy06-annual-report/comment-page-1/#comment-539 gene fidell Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:28:00 +0000 http://tx18.westnic.net/~caaflog/?p=288#comment-539 My impression over the years is that appellate defense counsel tend not to request oral argument. It's always baffled me (much as I am baffled by the custom of not filing reply briefs as a matter of routine). The default mode ought to be to request it (and, on the courts' part, to grant it). My impression over the years is that appellate defense counsel tend not to request oral argument. It’s always baffled me (much as I am baffled by the custom of not filing reply briefs as a matter of routine). The default mode ought to be to request it (and, on the courts’ part, to grant it).

]]> By: Nancy Truax http://www.caaflog.com/2007/03/11/fy06-annual-report/comment-page-1/#comment-538 Nancy Truax Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:32:00 +0000 http://tx18.westnic.net/~caaflog/?p=288#comment-538 In the three and a half years I've been in the job, the CGCCA has never denied a motion for oral argument. There haven't been that many, but then again, there haven't been that many cases. And the Court has specified issues on occasion or responded to pleadings with requests for additional information (again, not often, but often enough, given the case-load). So, while I may not always agree with the result in a given case, I've never come away feeling that I haven't been heard. In the three and a half years I’ve been in the job, the CGCCA has never denied a motion for oral argument. There haven’t been that many, but then again, there haven’t been that many cases. And the Court has specified issues on occasion or responded to pleadings with requests for additional information (again, not often, but often enough, given the case-load). So, while I may not always agree with the result in a given case, I’ve never come away feeling that I haven’t been heard.

]]> By: Chief Judge Wagner http://www.caaflog.com/2007/03/11/fy06-annual-report/comment-page-1/#comment-537 Chief Judge Wagner Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:19:00 +0000 http://tx18.westnic.net/~caaflog/?p=288#comment-537 I have heard repeated complaints that the NMCCA denies most requests for oral argument, but have yet to see any numbers to support that claim. I am skeptical of any broad claim that is not supported by fact and can attest to the fact that very few of the cases that come before my panel have requested oral argument. We have granted them routinely. As for the parting shot by "guert gansevoort" that an appeal before the NMCCA has heretofore been a meaningless ritual, it sounds like another broad claim without facts to back it up, and may generate from sources who never met a meritless issue they didn't like...or an issue of merit they could not confuse. I have heard repeated complaints that the NMCCA denies most requests for oral argument, but have yet to see any numbers to support that claim. I am skeptical of any broad claim that is not supported by fact and can attest to the fact that very few of the cases that come before my panel have requested oral argument. We have granted them routinely. As for the parting shot by “guert gansevoort” that an appeal before the NMCCA has heretofore been a meaningless ritual, it sounds like another broad claim without facts to back it up, and may generate from sources who never met a meritless issue they didn’t like…or an issue of merit they could not confuse.

]]> By: Guert Gansevoort http://www.caaflog.com/2007/03/11/fy06-annual-report/comment-page-1/#comment-536 Guert Gansevoort Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:15:00 +0000 http://tx18.westnic.net/~caaflog/?p=288#comment-536 I can tell you that the attorneys of the Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Division request oral argumement frequently, and these requests are almost always denied. The court only grants arguments when civilian appellate defense counsel request one, but even in those cases the court sometimes denies argument. Of the ten arguments reported in the 2006 Annual Report, I do not think a single one involved a military defense counsel arguing the case. As a result, Navy appellate defense counsel have three and four times as many arguments at the C.A.A.F. as they have at the NMCCA. In fact, none of the eighteen military defense counsel have even half as many NMCCA arguments as C.A.A.F. arguments. In the Court's defense, this may be attributable in part to the fact that the NMCCA has been under siege for the past four years as it combated the largest caseload in the military with the fewest judges. But that cannot explain why those who are fortunate enough to have the resources to hire civilian defense counsel also have an eighty percent chance of getting an audience with the Court while the indigent servicemember only gets a chance to argue at the C.A.A.F - if he is one of the lucky ten percent to get in the door. The system in the Navy, as it has existed for years, has discriminated against poor appellants and denied indigent servicemembers equal protection. See, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963).<br/><br/>But things may be changing. The current Chief Judge has openly encouraged his now super-sized court to grant oral arguments in cases where it is deemed necessary, and not only when the counsel has a civilian address. With the appellate defense division and the court adequately staffed for the first time in years, and the court willing to hear from counsel, I dare say an appeal to the NMCCA may no longer be a meaningless ritual. See Evitts v. Lucy, 469 U.S. 387 (1985). I can tell you that the attorneys of the Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Division request oral argumement frequently, and these requests are almost always denied. The court only grants arguments when civilian appellate defense counsel request one, but even in those cases the court sometimes denies argument. Of the ten arguments reported in the 2006 Annual Report, I do not think a single one involved a military defense counsel arguing the case. As a result, Navy appellate defense counsel have three and four times as many arguments at the C.A.A.F. as they have at the NMCCA. In fact, none of the eighteen military defense counsel have even half as many NMCCA arguments as C.A.A.F. arguments. In the Court’s defense, this may be attributable in part to the fact that the NMCCA has been under siege for the past four years as it combated the largest caseload in the military with the fewest judges. But that cannot explain why those who are fortunate enough to have the resources to hire civilian defense counsel also have an eighty percent chance of getting an audience with the Court while the indigent servicemember only gets a chance to argue at the C.A.A.F – if he is one of the lucky ten percent to get in the door. The system in the Navy, as it has existed for years, has discriminated against poor appellants and denied indigent servicemembers equal protection. See, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963).

But things may be changing. The current Chief Judge has openly encouraged his now super-sized court to grant oral arguments in cases where it is deemed necessary, and not only when the counsel has a civilian address. With the appellate defense division and the court adequately staffed for the first time in years, and the court willing to hear from counsel, I dare say an appeal to the NMCCA may no longer be a meaningless ritual. See Evitts v. Lucy, 469 U.S. 387 (1985).

]]> By: No Man http://www.caaflog.com/2007/03/11/fy06-annual-report/comment-page-1/#comment-534 No Man Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:32:00 +0000 http://tx18.westnic.net/~caaflog/?p=288#comment-534 In my experience with the CCAs, which was prior to the 2006 Annual Report reporting period, requests for oral argument were routinely made by appellate defense counsel. Counsel always saw oral argument as at least a nod that the court thought your case had some merit, a rare occurrence for CCA defense counsel. My memory was that CCA denied oral argument routinely, or, more specifically, never ruled on your request for oral argument and instead issued an opinion without mentioning oral argument. In my experience with the CCAs, which was prior to the 2006 Annual Report reporting period, requests for oral argument were routinely made by appellate defense counsel. Counsel always saw oral argument as at least a nod that the court thought your case had some merit, a rare occurrence for CCA defense counsel. My memory was that CCA denied oral argument routinely, or, more specifically, never ruled on your request for oral argument and instead issued an opinion without mentioning oral argument.

]]>