CAAF has posted its decision in United States v. Thompson, __ M.J. __, No. 09-0145/AR (C.A.A.F. Feb. 1, 2010), here.  Chief Judge Effron wrote for the majority affirming ACCA’s denial of relief under Article 10. 

The majority held:

We conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not err, under the specific circumstances of this case, in rejecting Appellant’s claim that the processing of this case violated Article 10 in view of the limited period of time at issue — thirty-seven days [during which the government failed to exercise reasonable diligence]; a record that does not establish Government indifference or substantial inactivity over the full course of the pretrial proceeding; and Appellant’s failure to demonstrate prejudice in terms of oppressive confinement, as reflected in the absence of pretrial complaints about confinement conditions and Appellant’s subsequent entry into a pretrial agreement waiving any Article 13 claim for illegal pretrial confinement conditions.

Judge Stucky concurred in the result, opining that the 145-days of pretrial confinement with 106 days attributable to the government shouldn’t even trigger an Article 10 analysis.

3 Responses to “New CAAF speedy trial decision”

  1. uhhhh says:

    Really confused on Stucky. Barker analysis not triggered because of (factors that should be considered under the “reasons for the delay” Barker analysis)? Who came up with this gem?

  2. uhhhh says:

    looks like he would just frontload the whole thing onto Barker prong 1. not sure what the point / difference is

  3. Anon says:

    The point, I think, is that the Supreme Court says that you don’t do the Barker analysis unless you find that the delay is “presumptively prejudicial,” and based on the facts of this case the delay wasn’t presumptively prejudicial. Second, it looks like Judge Stucky is calling the Court out on its continued claim that an Article 10 was meant to grant an accused greater rights than a civilian accused would get under the Sixth Amendment.