Here’s a link to a cert petition in Nerad v. United States that will be filed shortly.  It seeks review of CAAF’s decision at 69 MJ 138.  [Disclosure:  I’m counsel for the petitioner.]

8 Responses to “Military cert petition”

  1. John O'Connor says:

    Nice beatdown on CAAF for repeatedly exceeding its jurisdiction. I don’t agree that it did here, but I agree with your general premise that the court has done so time after time after time.

  2. John Harwood says:

    Mr. Sullivan, I hope this is granted … I’d love to see you get a cup of coffee at the big show.

  3. Phil Cave says:

    I particularly like the use of the SG’s arguments in Denedo about expanding jurisdiction against the government.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Those arguments didn’t prevail in Denedo, did they? CAAF didn’t exceed their jurisdiction here.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Defense delay granted in Hennis appeal

    According to an order filed in federal court on Wednesday, Hennis’ lawyers now have until Nov. 17 to file their opening brief in the appeal. A response from the Army officials named in the appeal would be due Dec. 20.

    The latest extension was granted for several reasons.

    According to a motion filed by Hennis’ lawyer, Eric J. Allen, additional time was needed to allow a national organization of defense attorneys to file a brief on Hennis’ behalf and to allow time for Hennis’ defense lawyers to give the case an appropriate amount of attention.

    Allen said in the motion that his office had to meet numerous other deadlines in the past few months on cases that included some before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “A final reason is the subject matter of the brief is extremely complex .,” Allen said in his motion. “Counsel wishes to provide the court with a brief that addresses all of these complex issues in a manner that is easily understandable. More time is necessary to accomplish this goal.”

  6. Anon says:

    Interesting, but on the wrong thread. As I recall, Hennis’s DC litigated the need for further forensic testing prior to the court-martial, which was denied. Now that the NC SBI fiasco has been exposed, I suspect that is a factor in this delay, which btw is the appeal from the USDC’s denial of his habeas petition.

    MODERATOR: Any way to “transfer” this to the appropriate Hennis thread?

  7. Anonymous says:

    I liked the result in Nerad. It’s patently ridiculous that you can have sex legally with someone but if you take pictures of it you are a life-long registered sex offender. It’s abusive to justice to have that dichotomy and it should be fixed in one direction or the other.

    However, it’s not so abusive to justice that it’s unconstitutional. The offense is what it is, and it’s hard to see the authority of the court to do what it did.

    Having said all of that, I’m not understanding how CAAF overstepped their bounds here. IF for example the service court had said, we dismiss this charge because it is Tuesday, then they clearly have operated outside their power.

    Rightly or wrongly, CAAF has said the same thing here, ACCA did something outside of their power. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong, but if they are right, I am struggling to see how they wouldn’t have the jurisdiction to correct that. Wouldn’t such a correction be based on the law, in this case, the law of the service court’s appropriate jurisdiction?

  8. Balkan Ghost says:

    Great work, Dwight.