Judge Baker wrote for a unanimous court.  The opinion is here.  More later.

6 Responses to “CAAF affirms in Mullins”

  1. John O'Connor says:

    BZ to the military judge for knowing the law, recognizing impermissible testimony, and immediately giving a corrective instruction.

  2. Curious says:

    And “what were you thinking” to the DC who did not object as the question was being asked, before the answer was given, and after the answer was given. I mean, what do you think an expert “forensic child interviewer” is going to try to smuggle in?

  3. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    I found even more interesting CAAF’s continued full retreat from its prior appellate delay precedent and converting the four factor test into a de facto prejudice test.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Seems to me that the Court’s retreat from appellate delay cases is the Court’s recognition that one of our services had a systemic problem processing its appeals, the problem has been sufficiently addressed, and that windfall from a literal application of Moreno in nearly all cases is unwarranted. Actual, proven prejudice is (and should be) the ultimate test.

  5. John O'Connor says:

    What Anon 0744 said.

  6. Snuffy says:

    The real problem with delay is that the services abdicated responsibility to the courts to enforce timeliness. The courts then wrote some nice opinions about how delay is unjust- Tardiff, Collazo, Moreno- then did nothing to enforce the rules. Now the courts are in full retreat-if you can’t present multiple certifications documenting that you were financially impacted or were unable to have children or something- you will get no relief. This failure to act by the courts, despite their strong language in earlier cases (Anyone remember the ACCA opinion in Bauerbach?) has effectively shifted the duty to address this back to the service JAGs. Until they step up (or until they actually care about timely processing and review and say so) nothing will happen. The problem with timely processes has certainly not been addressed. (Sure the Navy has fixed their two year appellate backlog- mostly. But is that the only problem?)
    My informed guess is that more than half the cases out there bust the 120 days from gavel to service court. I agree though, that a windfall to every appellant is not appropriate, but absent such relief, the commands out there will not care one whit about how long it takes to make a record of trial.
    I am of the opinion that unless the system works in a timely manner, justice is not well served. It should not take six months to make a 100 page record of trial, nor should it take two months to mail said ROT to the service court. Am I the only one out here who thinks this continued laggardly processing makes the whole system look bad? Especially in light of the court opinions out there saying how outrageous and unprofessional this sort of delay is??