CAAF’s web site has two new opinions (United States v. Webb, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-5003/AF (C.A.A.F. Mar. 3, 2008), and United States v. Upham, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0322/CG (C.A.A.F. Mar. 3, 2008)) and ACCA’s web site has one new opinion (United States v. Grisham, __ M.J. ___, No. ARMY 20050479 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 29, 2008)).

4 Responses to “Opinions galore”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Denedo? Hope the opinion will be worth the wait . . .

  2. No Man says:

    Upham seems relatively straightforward and in line with congressional intent to vest discretion over the conduct of trial with the military judge until authentication. It would seem odd that a military judge has absolute discretion to order post trial hearings, but no authority to make any decisions at those hearings.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Webb comes close to the government’s version of a frivolous argument.

  4. No Man says:

    Oops, I meant Webb. And I don’t think the government argument was any more frivolous than arguments by defense cousnel that NMCCA inappropriately characterizes as meritless and, in a manner unbefitting an appellate court, chides appellate counsel for raising. All good arguments, regardless of your side of the aisle.