It looks like CAAF won’t be having a going-out-of-business sale after all. Today it granted review of two issues in United States v. Larson, No. 07-0263/AF:

I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAD NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS GOVERNMENT COMPUTER DESPITE THIS COURT’S RULING IN UNITED STATES v. LONG, 64 M.J. 57 (C.A.A.F. 2006)

II. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE 27, UCMJ, WHEN HIS CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL, IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, DURING FINDINGS, AND AGAIN IN CLOSING ARGUMENT, CONCEDED APPELLANT’S GUILT TO VARIOUS CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS.

5 Responses to “CAAF is still in business”

  1. John O'Connor says:

    On Issue II, putting aside the IAC issues, how can conduct by a retained civilian counsel violate counsel rights under Article 27? Article 27 gives you the right to detailed military counsel. The accused can retain a civilian counsel if he wants, and gets to decide who will try the case. Is the theory for an Article 27 violation that the detailed military counsel should have tackled the civilian counsel (that the accused designated to argue the case) in order to shut him up?

  2. MAJ B says:

    Uh, because civilian counsel is expected to be competent? Interesting theory that the client waives IAC by hiring civilian counsel.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Neither CAAF nor the Supreme Court seem exempt out members of the “defense team” from a claim of AIC. While the “primacy of authority and responsibility” might be with the civilian defense counsel under Art 38, the courts have evaluated AIC claims based upon the conduct of the defense (not a particular individual).

  4. John O'Connor says:

    Uhh, Maj B, why don’t you re-read my post. Did I say an accused waived IAC by hiring civilian counsel? Uh, no. I said, “putting aside IAC issues” (and that’s the important caveat here), why would Article 27 be a player here?

    I never said IAC doesn’t apply, but wondered why Article 27 fits into the analysis, since that only deals with detailing of the military lawyer and it looks (on first glance) that the accused’s own lawyer did all the allegedly bad things.

    To use your words, what an “interesting” reading of my post.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I am not exactly sure why caaflog is so terribly fascinated with the length of time that elapses between petition grants. Perhaps more persuasive briefs would contribute to more granted petitions?