CAAF granted review in two Air Force cases today.  The specified issue in United States v. Drew, No. 09-0445/AF, is “Whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to grant Appellant’s recusal motion under R.C.M. 902(a).”  The granted issue in United States v. Graybill, No. 09-0252, is “Whether the military judge erroneously accepted Appellant’s plea of guilty to willfully suffering the damage of a military fire extinguisher, and the lower court erred by affirming the finding of guilty to that specification.”  [DISCLAIMER:  I’m the appellate defense counsel in Graybill.]

7 Responses to “CAAF grants”

  1. InspectorGadget says:

    go go gadget grants. Let’s see ’em earn that $180k this term.

  2. InspectorGadget says:

    go go gadget grants. Let’s see ’em earn that $180k this term.
    Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!

  3. Bill C says:

    In Drew, a simple guilty plea to a drug offense has now needlessly created two appellate cases because the Military Judge did not recuse himself. Regardless of what CAAF does, it could have all been avoided if he had just stepped aside.

  4. Anonymous says:

    That logic could be used for ANY issue that reaches CAAF. And while we’re trending at 45-50 cases per term, the limited-resources argument is pretty weak.

  5. Err says:

    Yes, but Bill’s point is that the military judge’s role is not to keep himself on the bench at all costs. Similar to how the TC’s role is not to oppose every DC motion. But guess what? This is MJ, so sh$$ happens. The whole purpose of the CAAF is to bring some civilian review to stupid stuff like this, and maybe eventually we’ll see a more mature response to DC motions.

  6. Wait a forkin' minute here says:

    It’s way to simple to say that the MJ should not keep himself on the bench at all costs. My reply to that would be that the MJ should also not let the accused dictate which judges sit when vis a vis recusal motions. Recusal should be the rarest of occurrences. If you don’t believe me on how hard it should be to get judge kicked, please see Caperton v. Massey Energy, 2009. Warning, reading this case will make you feel uber pwned!

  7. Anonymous says:

    “Recusal should be the rarest of occurrences.”

    Aren’t they already?