Audio of today’s argument in the LIO case of United States v. Alston, No. 10-0172/AR, is available here. And audio from United States v. Luke, No. 05-0157/NA, the USACIL mad scientist case, is available here.

6 Responses to “Radio Free CAAF”

  1. Scott Brenley says:

    so,the samples weren’t contaminated because the person who has been proven to contaminate evidence and have a habit of not following procedures say so? incredible indeed. It seems the government is grasping straws in this case. Sometimes, I have a hard time following defense reasoning on some of his respones, also I am taken by all the art 73 questions, as this seems like a continuing art 66 case.

    I am not very familiar with the record, can someone fill me in on whether this is simply art 66 and the government is seeking a pass under the shroud of art 73 ? in any event interestiing banter, this case seem old. Col Sulivan, could you please or someone else please fill in the blanks about art 66 vice art 77 and time frames if you can.

    Thank you,

    ps, I enjoyed the coram nobis punch line and I am also surprised at how clear the recording was, I need to listen to these arguments more often. As a newbee, I realize there is a lot I can glean from listening on this site, I have to tell the guys in my shop about this.

    Oh, can we listen to other arguments on the CAAF site?

  2. Michael Lowrey says:

    For links to CAAF oral arguments, go to

  3. John O'Connor says:

    Nice post title.

    This is Radio CAAF,
    On pirate satellite,
    Orbiting your living room,
    Cashing in the Bill of Rights.

  4. nharmswa says:

    Sound Like to me the US Government owes this guy an appointment

  5. nharmswa says:

    Sound Like to me the US Government owes this guy a huge apology

  6. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Luke is an interesting case, and presents issues beyond the allegations of contamination of evidence.

    Will the Court agree with Judge Erdmann’s dissent in the Court’s original look at Luke, 63 MJ 60, 63 (CAAF 2006) (Erdmann, J., dissenting), and toss the whole thing on jurisdictional grounds, ala Rodriguez? If a statutory time limit is jurisdictional in Article 67, why not in Article 73? Without diminishing the other issues in the case, which are case-specific, this issue is probably most important for the development of military law. I suspect that one will see the same lineup as in Rodriguez, with Judges Erdmann, Ryan, and Stucky finding that the new trial claim is barred by the time limit in Art. 73.

    As for the underlying claim of contamination, the easy conclusion is that Dr Mills was not good at some things; therefore not good at anything. He resigned in disgrace; anything he touched is the work of the devil! Two pesky things stand in the way of that hasty conclusion: the standard of review, and those pesky things, facts.

    NMCCA’s opinion in the case following remand and two DuBay hearings discusses the standard of review and the facts in some detail and with good analysis by Judge Couch. It is worth a careful read before coming to any conclusions about US v. Luke. The NMCCA opinion is at 2009 CCA LEXIS 270.

    For Mr. Brenley–read the prior opinions in this case, all available on Lexis or the respective Court’s websites. You’ll find answers to your questions there. Also, something that took me an awfully long time to figure out (I am somewhat slow, and waste time searching for my emerald ring)– the standard of review, esp. in appeals, is colossally important, and often wins or loses your case. The applicable standards of review here help the Gov’t a lot, as is evident from the NMCCA opinion. New trials are hard to get.