CAAF granted review today on the following interesting issues:

I.   WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE VIOLATED APPELLANT’S RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 701 BY DENYING APPELLANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HE PLED GUILTY.

II.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HE PLED GUILTY AND APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS THEREFORE IMPROVIDENT.

United States v. Jones, __ M.J. __, No. 08-0335/NA (C.A.A.F. Apr. 23, 2010).

NMCCA’s unpublished decision in the case is available hereUnited States v. Jones, No. NMCCA 200602320 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 27, 2009).

5 Responses to “CAAF grant”

  1. clue says:

    CCA needs to buy a clue for $200. Despite the vacate and remand they just reaffirmed?

  2. Cheap Seats says:

    The Chief Judge of the Navy was the Trial Judge. Don’t you like that one…Do they want their boss to look bad?

  3. Norbert Basil MacLean III says:

    Cheap Seats: Just one example of why there should be fixed terms of office for the Navy and Marine Corps appellate judges (as well as trial judges) like the Army has. If you have a fixed term of office I bet you wouldn’t be too worried about your job as a jurist if you issue an opinion that happens to reverse and/or vacate your boss’ ruling when he was a trial judge.

  4. Cheap Seats says:

    Yeah, but in their defense, most of these judges are superb jurists in most instances, including the Chief Judge. But it does set up a weird dynamic…Guess that is why CAAF is limited to civilians (no retirees allowed).

  5. Anonymous says:

    Reserve military retirees can be CAAF judges — see, eg, Judges Erdmann and Stuckey.