I’m back — and I found a couple more CAAF grants and an extremely interesting CAAF opinion awaiting me upon my return.

CAAF has granted review in a search and seizure case:  “WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM APPELLANT’S QUARTERS.”  United States v. Clayton, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0644/AR (C.A.A.F. July 22, 2009).  ACCA’s unpublished opinion in the case is available here.  United States v.  Clayton, No. ARMY 20070145 (A. Ct. Crim. App. May 9, 2008).

And CAAF granted review in a Wiesen-type members challenge case:  “WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE OF CAPTAIN STOJKA, CREATING SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER APPELLANT HAD A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL PANEL WHERE THE SENIOR MEMBER AND ONE OF HIS SUBORDINATES COMPRISED THE TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT APPELLANT.”  United States v. Bagstad, No. 09-0429/MC (C.A.A.F. July 22, 2009).  NMCCA’s published opinion in the case is available here.  We discussed the opinion here.

4 Responses to “CAAF grants”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Oh, no. Another Wiesen debacle. Another case where five guys in black robes sitting in their insular offices in Washington will tell a trial judge on scene that he can’t be an objective observer – but they can. God help us all.

  2. Phil Cave says:

    Is Clayton a secret opinion?

  3. Anon E. Moose says:

    Anon0736 – that is not quite the point of Wiesen. As far as appellate activism goes, the NMCCA was also quite activist when it went to whatever creative lengths necessary to resolve this case against the appellant.

  4. Bill C says:

    Phil: Clayton isn’t “secret.” I am counsel of record. It is a case where ACCA “short formed” it the day after the government submitted their brief. CAAF obviously thinks the case is at least interesting, as they ordered supplemental briefing prior to issuing the Grant.