The big event for the week will be the Article 32 investigation in the Hasan case, which I understand will start on Tuesday.  Here’s the rest of the rundown:

This week at the Supremes:  There are no anticipated military justice developments at the Supremes on my radar screen for this week.

This week at CAAF:  CAAF will hear two oral arguments on Wednesday.  First out of the chute is United States v. Flores, No. 10-0332/AF, on this isuse: “WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL IMPROPERLY COMMENTED ON APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT THUS DEPRIVING APPELLANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.”  Second will be the prominent case of United States v. Hutchins, No. 10-5003/MC, on these certified issues:

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SEVERED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH CAPTAIN BASS?

 WHETHER UNDER R.C.M. 505(d)(2)(B), THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT INCORRECTLY FOUND NO “GOOD CAUSE” ON THE RECORD FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF APPELLANT’S SECOND DETAILED DEFENSE COUNSEL WITH ANOTHER COUNSEL?

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD AND ERRONEOUSLY PRESUMED, WITHOUT ASSESSING, PREJUDICE AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCE, WHERE APPELLANT’S STATUTORY RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WERE SATISFIED THROUGHOUT TRIAL?

With Blazier II, Medina, Prather, and Luke already having been argued on Hutchins being argued this week, this year’s term seems frontloaded with monumental cases.

This week at the CCAs:  The CCA websites don’t list any oral arguments for this week.

This week in CLE:  This Friday is day for the CAAF/JAA Appellate Advocacy Symposium at George Mason University’s law school.  Online registration is available here.

9 Responses to “This week in military justice — Columbus Day Weekend 2010 edition”

  1. Obvious says:

    I guess by December we’ll have some “monumental” opinions?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Instead of issuing opinions, the CAAF judges spend their time putting up a big, expensive brass plaque to honor themselves (oh, I mean the building). And what is a “monumental” military justice opinion? One that decides whether to call one expert witness or two? None of these pending opinions will cause a ripple in the sea of life.

  3. Maybe, Maybe Not says:

    Sure they can – especially the AF. If you have to bring the whole lab to testify, perhaps the AF will stop court-martialing every drug use case and start chaptering the users. Saving us all time, money and effort.

  4. publius says:

    The Hutchins decision will be very important. The issue presented is important in and of itself, in that it addresses an area where the military justice system appears vulnerable: effective assistance of counsel. The idea that a uniformed attorney cannot be a zealous defense advocate is ignorant and insulting, but like it or not, it persists. More than that, though, the Hutchins case has large ramifications for how the military handles gross LOAC violations. The NMCCA opinion might uncharitably be considered tendentious and an example of uniforms, at the last, protecting their own.

  5. J.A Conelly says:

    Well folks, I put my money on Luke, It just seems to be a lot going on in this case as I can remember.

    For starters, there is much more than the DNA issue going on in this case, I believe there is a substantial discovery issue and a very compelling Moreno issue as far as I could remember this case is the oldest non-capital case in the appellate system, I believe its in excess of 11 years!!!!

    It just seems if there is going to be a surprise bomb shell, i believe its this case.

  6. Anon says:

    Not if CAAF keeps “punting” on cases like they did last year (Jones notwithstanding). Look at Serianne. A great opportunity to decide the constitutional issue of self-reporting, instead they decide it on a narrow regulation interpretation ground. Blazier was another punt. It shouldn’t take two go-arounds to decide the issue.

  7. Anonymous says:

    How ridiculous that they avoided deciding a case on constitutional grounds when they didn’t have to. Are you also unhappy that they don’t issue more advisory opinions?

  8. Just wondering... says:

    Hmmm, deciding what to do with the new Article 120 won’t cause a ripple…tell that to an accused who’s facing confinement and sex offender notification. And if Blazier is so unimportant, then why the heck did the Supreme Court just grant in Bullcoming?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Hutchins NMCCA opinion is one example of why there’s too much drift wood over at the Navy Yard that should be replaced by some new blood.