I have a follow-up on each of the Hall cases discussed yesterday. First, through the computer wizardry of the No Man, NMCCA’s unpublished opinion in United States v. Anthony T. Hall, No. NMCCA 200600805 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. March 20, 2007), is now available here on caaflog.com.
Second, as Anonymous astutely observes, I made a mistake in my “Halls of Justice” write-up last night. In my original post, I said that CAAF had granted review in United States v. Henry L. Hall II. Anonymous points out that the Hall II order “is not a grant of review yet, just a request for briefs on a specified issue.” Sure enough, on the 17 August daily journal, the Hall II order appears under the “Interlocutory Orders” heading and not the “Orders Granting Petition for Review” heading. But what exactly is the Hall II order, then? Is it really simply an order telling the appellate defense counsel to file a supplement to the petition for grant of review addressing that issue and telling GAD to respond? If so, the wording seems a bit strange. Also, if you are going to go to that much effort, why not just grant review rather than prolonging the prologue? Of course the formal granting of review matters a great deal, since that is what opens the door to the right to file a cert petition at the Supremes.
Apparently I wasn’t the only one confused. On CAAF’s own web site, Hall II is listed on the New Grants and Summary Dispositions page.
Does anyone have additional insight about the Hall II order’s species? Perhaps the author of the CAAF Rules Guide, Eugene Fidell the Sagacious, can offer us some guidance.