[Unobtrusively Granted] NMCCA Hamdaniya Remand
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports here that NMCCA remanded the case of U.S. v. Hutchins, involving killings in Hamdaniya, Iraq, for a DuBay hearing. The story reports:
The appellate justices asked a trial judge to obtain evidence about why one of Hutchins’ military attorneys was dismissed from the case before it went to court-martial. Hutchins’ original sentence of 15 years has been reduced to 11, and he is trying to shorten it further or get a new trial based on accusations that the attorney’s dismissal hurt his defense strategy.
The trial judge is expected to compile a report on his findings for the justices.
Anyone ever seen the opinion? Probably just a memorandum order. The story also reports that NMCAA has rejected other appeals in the related case of Cpl. Trent Thomas. NMCCA Unpub. Op. here. Also here is the related case of US v. Pennington, NMCCA No. 20080106, that has an appendix of all the related cases. Amusing line from the Thomas opinion, “Assuming, arguendo, that the military judge’s reference to the liberal grant mandate being equally applicable to Government challenges as defense challenges was erroneous, his conclusions were not.”
Does the result or lack of notice to you color the title of your post, implicating NMCCA negatively, not to mention your characterization of CCA language as amusing? Sure, we all know that the liberal grant mandate does not apply to the Govt (per CAAF case law), but the court seemed well within the bounds by not even considering that portion of the test and disposing of the issue on another part. Maybe that panel believes the liberal grant mandate should apply to the Govt, but all that is besides the point as it is irrelavant to the disposition of the issue.
I can’t really decipher the comment above, but let’s talk about how you spelled “irrelevant.”
Anon 941 pm:
I am in a duking it out with the commentariat kinda mood. So, first, the case was a high profile court-martial, that sent the record back for a DuBay hearing (without a plenary opinion to our knowledge), and on a counsel disqualification issue. How do you not ask how that case went under the radar with the MJW crowd here? And hmmm, why did that lead me to use the word “Stealth” in the post title?
Second, since when did stealth become a pejorative term? How does it “implicat[] NMCCA negatively” on NMCCA? I even admitted in the post that it was probably a memorandum op, which NMCCA doesn’t publish. Though I will also note that I am working on a post sending BZ to NMCCA for the new website–very user friendly and all the unpublished NMCCA ops for the last 5 years.
Third, I don’t even get your point about the assuming arguendo bit, I think even you got the humor. I mean c’mon, that statement was like a court saying, “Assuming arguendo the government can’t torture a confession out of a suspect and have the confession admitted at trial . . .”. Ok, maybe that wasn’t the best analogy.
Serves me right for responding on my BBerry, I hope lolol isn’t still reading.
Except when used with the term “bomber” (and even then in some quarters), “stealth” brings with it a negative connotation.
If JO’C says it is so, then I stand corrected. I anoint this post the “Unobtrusively Granted NMCCA Hamdaniya Remand”
You guys are so nice as well as sensitive. Sheesh.
See here, pal, I wasn’t being sensitive. I simply opined that I gneerally agree that the word “stealth” carries with it a negative connotation. I wasn’t complaining about the No Man’s use of the term, about which I care very little.
Look man, that’s more like the tone I have come to expect. But does “sensitive” carry a negative connotation? You still seem a bit touchy. BTW- none of us care that much about No Man’s use of the the term.
Dig this, buddy, whether “sensitive” carries a negative connotation or not (and it certainly does in some contexts in some quarters), I was just clarifying that the term (for good or bad) didn’t apply to my reaction to the No Man’s use of the term “stealth.” I’m still shocked he could do the math problem required to post.
I finally figured it out — thirteen is wrong, the answer is 13 — duh.
J’OC,
Look, pal, for someone who tries to play the “straight guy” so much on this blog, you need to leave the comedy to the professionals like No Man…that dude’s posts are funny.
Phil Ate This:
Listen up, pal, I wouldn’t say I play the straight man on this blog. As for No Man’s posts, you mean funny ha-ha?
J’OC, look here, fella…what I meant was “funny” as in “not making any sense whatsoever and containing numerous type-o’s.”
Boy, this sure is a slow month for CAAFLOG: Debating the exact meaning of the words “stealth” and “sensitive” and “funny”. Not even Cossio is posting much lately. I’m looking forward to when the courts to get back to work this fall and start releasing opinions again.