Audio up
Here’s a link to the audio for today’s CAAF argument in Roach. And here’s a link to the audio for today’s CAAF argument in Ferguson.
-
Search CAAFlog
Categories
Archives
Contact CAAFlog
Courts
Blogs & Journals
Links
- Air Force JAG School
- Army Trial Judiciary Docket
- Coast Guard Docket
- Judge Advocates Association
- Naval Justice School
- Joint Service Committee on Military Justice
- JAA Inn of Court
- TJAGLCS Criminal Law Department
- Air Force Appellate Defense Division
- Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Div
- National Institute of Military Justice
Military Justice Research
- UCMJ (with amendments through 31 Dec 11)
- Manual for Courts-Martial (2012 ed.)
- Military Judges' Benchbook
- Fidell's CAAF Rules Guide
- NMCCA Rules
- AFCCA Rules
- Library of Congress, Military Law
- Law Library Microform Consortium
- CRS, Analysis of The Constitution
- CRS, Statutory Interpretation
- AFMAN 51-203, Records of Trial
- AFPD 51-2, Admin. of Military Justice
- AFI 51-201, Admin of Military Justice
- AF Rules of Professional Conduct
- Army JAG Corps Regimental History
- AR 27-10, Military Justice
- AR 27-26, Rules of Prof. Conduct
- COMDTINST M5810.1d, Mil Jus Man
- JAGINST 5803.1C, Prof. Conduct of Attys
- JAGINST 5810.2A, Military Justice Regs.
- JAGMAN (JAGINST 5800.7E)
Admin
Contributors
Nice “Jesus” comment from Judge Ryan when the Chief Judge graciously offered the government extra time to discuss Issue 4.
Judge Ryan needs to work on her judicial temperament on the bench. The appearance of fairness is always good…
If Judge Ryan has an attitude about the government’s position in Roach, maybe she should recuse herself.
Anons 0725/0852,
Get a clue. Judge Ryan’s protest had nothing to do with with bias for or against the Gov’t position, and everything to do with the Chief Judge’s anything-goes policy at oral argument.
I may be clueless, but it seems to me that it is the Chief Judge’s prerogative to give the govt some extra time to address an additional issue. Counsel only get 20 minutes to argue, and there were four briefed issues. CAAF only hears a handful of cases a year. Why be in such a hurry to get the law right?
Using that logic, why limit oral argument to 20 minutes? If getting the law right requires letting counsel say their peace, why not 60 minutes per? Or 90, etc.
First, I don’t agree that getting the law right requires oral argument at all. Sure, it can help. But is it necessary? No. After you’ve watched a few CAAF arguments you’ll why. In this case, I can’t say that the Government’s six extra minutes of argument added any value to the position already well articulated on brief.
Second, it’s a fairness issue. Appellate Defense Counsel acknowledged at the outset that he wouldn’t have time to address all four issues, so he structured his argument accordingly. If Gov’t counsel couldn’t manage his time or the Court was simply wanted to spend 20 mins discussing other AOEs, that’s life. In this case, ADC got extra time on rebuttal, so it all evened out.
Yes, the Chief Judge is the boss at oral argument. But Chief Judge Effron’s “take as much time as you need to deliver the argument that should have been made” approach here is an exercise of discretion without standards. No different than when the Court allows counsel to raise issues for the first time at any stage of the proceedings. It’s just not done in the big leagues. That’s where Judge Ryan was trained. But now she sits on a training court. Cut her some slack.
Or maybe the spirit just moved her.
Well anon 1159 you concede there is no fairness issue since the defense was given more time as well so that kind of destroys that issue, so you are left with apparently there isn’t enough standard to the discretion?
Sometimes the judges ask questions that are tangential or focused on one issue, which does not allow an advocate to cover all of their bases. Maybe oral argument doesn’t matter, if it doesn’t then why have it at all? Apparently we’ve collected decided to maintain the fiction that it does, so in that vein, if an advocate needs more time, as long as the opposing side gets additional time as well should they desire and the Chief Judge is ok with it, what’s the harm and I think the point is, why the lack of basic judicial temperment on the bench?
Judge Ryan can’t wait the ten minutes until recess to privately complain to the Chief Judge? The reaction engenders just the kind of misunderstanding we see on here. Where folks wonder if her response was against a party or against a position or merely against more time in general.
Inappropriate comment, any justification is unnecessary and irrelevant. But it’s also water under the bridge.
The irony is that this inappropriate comment was made in a case about public perception.
This is why most courts do not allow video recording. Otherwise lawyers would spend hours debating the appropriateness of a judge’s facial expressions. It really just protects us from ourselves…
It’s like rain on your wedding day, the good advice that you just didn’t take…
Wow, clearly Alanis Morrisette isn’t too popular around here.