In case any of you don’t read the comments to the posts here on CAAFlog, here is what appears to be an enormously important development in the Wilson case brought to our attention by an anonymous Yankees fan:
And too bad the Army government appellate division already conceded the issue in its final brief. Where is appellate advocacy when we need it? Let’s have a debate, not a rollover. As the Scooter used to say, “Holy Cow!”
Fri Aug 17, 06:14:00 AM EDT
I assume the conceded issue is whether a reasonable and honest mistake of fact as to age is a defense in a sodomy case.
Appellate courts are fond of saying that they need not respond to a party’s concession like a Pavlovian dog, so this may not end the discussion. And the wording of the granted issue in United States v. Gainous, __ M.J. ___, No. 06-0932/NA (C.A.A.F. Aug. 14, 2007), suggests that at least someone on CAAF may not see the case the same way that apparently both GAD and DAD do. But this seems to be a rather huge development. Can anyone with access to the parties’ filings shed further light on this?
Also check out Fitz’s important comment here.