The opinion is available here.  More later.

6 Responses to “CAAF releases Blazier opinion, disagreeing with AFCCA’s analysis and ordering more briefing”

  1. Anon says:

    In the wake of Melendez-Diaz Army labs stripped out the results memo and now simply report out the “guts” of the tests without the analysis or conclusions of a cover memo. My initial read of Blazier would seem to validate this approach.

    Thoughts?

  2. John Baker says:

    The Navy Labs still create the cover memo, but the TCs have not been attempting to offer those and instead offer the test results prepared when conducting the tests and call an expert to explain what those results mean. We still challenge all of that on confrontation grounds to preserve the issue.

  3. Not Gene Fidell says:

    So long magyari…BTW..some Army labs still are sending the results memo…or were until today.

  4. Gene Fidell says:

    Since the wily Not Gene Fidell has reappeared, the least I can do is offer my two cents as Not Not Gene Fidell. I’m glad the Court of Appeals recognized the significance of the issue and decided to take its time in addressing it. But why were only the appellate divisions invited to file amicus briefs? After all this time [i.e., since 1951] one would have hoped it would have occurred to the Judges that there is an important interest served in obtaining views from outside the military justice system. I’m not thinking just of NIMJ, but of organizations like NACDL, the ABA, some of the state and local bar committees. Military justice does not exist in a vacuum–or at least should not, as Project Outreach presumably is intended to demonstrate. By the way, the decision does not indicate whether there will be another oral argument after the supplemental briefing.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I don’t believe the CAAF rules limit the parties that can file amicus – as you know CAAF seems to do this every now and then as a kick in the pants to the various services because the underlying issue is of such import across the mil justice spectrum. Mr. Fidell just because you weren’t specifically invited to the party, don’t get a complex – this seems to be right up NIMJ’s alley. That being said, not sure why we need additional pleadings when the underlying caselaw was already established at the time of initial briefing.

  6. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Good sir Fidell (aka Not Not):

    Your comments are quite correct; I am sure the Court would look favorably upon any motion for leave to file under Rule 26. Perhaps the Court would even be inspired to broaden to scope of its invitation in a supplemental order.

    Yrs humbly,
    CS