Thanks to an alert reader, we now have a copy of the Holmes petition for extraordinary relief, which we discussed here.  We’ve posted the petition for writ of mandamus and stay here.

Here’s the content of the order that ACCA issued in the case yesterday:

On 19 November 2010, Petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for Stay of Proceedings.


1.  That Petitioner’s request for a stay in the proceedings is granted;

2.  That the Government Appellate Division shall answer the pleadings which have been filed by counsel for Petitioner within twenty (20) days of this Order;

3.  That Petitioner may file a reply to the Government’s answer within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Government’s answer to this Order.

Holmes v. United States, No. ARMY MISC 20100918 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 19, 2010).

8 Responses to “The Holmes petition for extraordinary relief from Stryker Brigade case”

  1. John O'Connor says:

    Why doesn’t NMCCA just set up a special panel to manage Article 32s. Good grief.

  2. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    In mild defense of NMCCA, this is an Army case.

  3. John O'Connor says:

    Why doesn’t ACCA just set up a special panel to manage Article 32s. Good grief.


  4. Bill C says:

    JOC: I am not sure which way to read your sarcasm. Are you saying ACCA is being too paternalistic, or are you saying that 32s are screwed up so often they need adult supervision? Just curious.

  5. John O'Connor says:

    Basically, I’m saying that the CCAs don’t have a roving mandate to superiontend the military justice system. There have not even been charges referred. The ACCA can’t even review an MJ’s ruling on the adequacy of the Article 32 because, of course, there has been no referral to any court-martial.

    If the Article 32 is dorked up, the proper couse of action, if there is a referral, is to apply to the MJ for relief. If the accused is aggrieved by he MJ’s ruling, he has a better case (in my mind) for writ jurisdiction from he MJ’s decision, or he can seek relief in the ordinary course of appeal.

    I don’t really disagree that Article 32s are often in need of adult supervision, but I don’t see that as the CCAs’ role pre-referral.

  6. Bill C says:

    I don’t disagree, although I would have likely done the same thing if I were the DC in this case. I did a case where the IO closed the 32 to the press, and some news outlet got ACCA to grant a writ requiring him to open it, but I think that is different, because there is no other meaningful relief.
    In this case, the TC should be the one thinking forward and realizing that the case could get busted in the long run over something that could easily be avoided.

  7. John O'Connor says:

    I will say that if the petition describes what transpired at the Article 32, it certainly was odd. “You can cross-examine the CID agent about the pictures but you can’t see the pictures.”

    If that’s what happened, it’s a weird result.

  8. Snuffy says:

    I dont see why using the pictures in open court is dangerous to the govt. Limit it to hand held pix- not blowups or on screen- and no one in the press will get to see them. Even in an open hearing, they could prevent copies from getting into the hand of reporters, right?