On Thursday, CAAF granted review of this issue:  “WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN HE DID NOT DECLARE SUA SPONTE THAT THE OFFENSES OF RECEIVING AND POSSESSING THE SAME CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WERE MULTIPLICITOUS.”  United States v. Craig, __ M.J. ___, No. 09-0759/NA (C.A.A.F. Nov. 19, 2009).

NMCCA’s opinion in the caes is published at 67 M.J. 742 and is available here.  While Chief Judge O’Toole wrote the opinion, I note that it was joined by our newest CAAFlog commentator, then-Senior Judge Couch.

11 Responses to “CAAF grants review of child pornography multiplicity issue”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Oh, how convenient. An opinion by the 3 judges recently discussed. I wonder how many other opinions these 3 joined in are up for CAAF review. Don’t you break those kinds of stats down at this site? I think I saw it in the context of the 5 CAAFers’ voting trends. Try here http://www.caaflog.com/?s=caaf+vote+trends

    Give us a break down, caaflog. Can you also link to the briefs filed with CAAF in these cases? At least Mr. Couch’s. Or, at least tell me where I can find them. Should be interesting reads and contribute to the discussions had here.

  2. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Anonymous,

    You are an idiot. I read the case. Did you? Multiplicity is a difficult area of the law, and I’m not so sure Judge Couch and his colleagues got it wrong. Also, given your vitriol, I doubt you noticed that they granted relief in dismissing a specification in a case I saw charged all too often by prosecutors, that being the idea that if it is in your share folder on Limewire, you must have distributed it. I thought the opinion was well written.

    What Brief would Judge Couch have filed in this case? He concurred in the judgment. Parties file briefs, judges file opinions.

    Finally, if you want to break down the stats of NMCCA, why not do it yourself. Whatever you do, stop spewing your hate on this site. People like you denigrate the justice system by turning it into a Win-Loss game. While I may differ with the honorable Judge Couch on some issues, I have no doubt that he tried to do his job the best he could.

  3. Anonymous says:

    SDC,

    Not sure I read that 1st post to be quite as vitriolic as you do. What is so hate-filled about what anon said?

  4. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Anon #2,

    I took the opening (sentence?) combined with the last anonymous comment to lead off a thread WRT Judge Couch and start with an attack to indicate the likelihood that this anon was one and the same. I may have been wrong, but I think I took better than a shot in the dark. Perhaps I needed to sip my coffee more slowly this morning, but the comment didn’t sit right with me and still upon re-read has a dangerous tone to it IMO.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Looks like the oral argument is also available on NMCCA’s website. Feb. 11.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Why in the world, would you down-rate “Looks like the oral argument is also available on NMCCA’s website.”

    This whole rating thing is now officially useless.

  7. Late Bloomer says:

    Just a thought…perhaps if we required a user to register on Caaflog in order to “rate” comments, it would cut down on some of the nonsense? Ratings could still be done anonymously. But the required affirmative step of registration would at least give most on here who wish to comment a vested interest in those comments.

  8. Anonymous says:

    How do you rate a comment? Is there a registration requirement? Concerned and confused.

  9. MJW1 says:

    First, Judge Couch is one of the finest jurist the CCA has ever seen. To think otherwise is foolish. Tell me of another more fairminded CCA judge than he? Look at his opinions, look at the stances he took outside the appellate judiciary.

    Second, Why so many concerns about down-grades and up-grades? Are you really serious. Man-Up pal!

  10. Anonymous says:

    “Judge Couch is one of the finest jurist the CCA has ever seen. To think otherwise is foolish.”

    He may be, but to tell someone that they’re foolish because they have an opinion that differs from yours is, well, foolish.

  11. Anonymous says:

    After reading the namecalling at this site and seeing the silly ganging up to hide a comment, I’m not so sure calling O’Toole, Maksym and Couch Jagoffs is out of line. I know, deleted by the deleter in chief, the d i c.