CAAF issued its first opinion of the term on Monday, releasing its decision in United States v. Savard, No. 10-0334/AF. Judge Stucky wrote for a unanimous court. The court held that the military judge erred by ruling on a motion without holding a requested Article 39(a) session — a violation of R.C.M. 905(h) — but that the error was harmless. CAAF’s decision confirmed that “when one of the parties so requests, Rule for Courts-Martial
(R.C.M.) 905(h) requires that the military judge hold a hearing on a written motion.” Savard, slip op. at 2.
[Insert familiar disclosure here.]