This has been an eventful year in military justice land.  Over the coming days, we’ll continue our annual tradition of posting our choices of the top-ten military justice stories of the year.  But unlike last year, when we reached a consensus concerning our choices, this year there is considerable disagreement among the CAAFlog contributors concerning what should make the list.  So we’ll see how this process will go.  Perhaps the No Man will hijack the list at some point and insert some of his choices.

Less controversial are the cases we’ll be keeping an eye on over the coming year.  Probably foremost among those is the trial of MAJ Nidal Hasan, who we assume will be tried by a capital court-martial during 2011.  Another expected military justice case high on our radar screen is that of PFC Bradley Manning, though there have been some recent indications that his case may be diverted to United States District Court.  We’ll also be following the habeas litigation in military death row inmate Ronald Gray’s case, which we expect to produce some interesting law over the coming year.  We’ll continue to cover all of those stories, plus whatever unexpected developments pop up.  After all, in December 2009, none of us had ever heard of LTC Terrence Lakin.

10 Responses to “Pass in review”

  1. Christopher Mathews says:

    After all, in December 2009, none of us had ever heard of LTC Terrence Lakin.

    Who?

  2. Charles Gittins says:

    Acquittal of 3 SEALs!

  3. John Baker says:

    If Lakin’s case makes the top ten, I’ll be very disappointed — as we have seen many more complex and significant cases at the trial and appellate level that mean more to military justice than a selfish O-5 who liked to read his name in the paper who, in the end, blinked.

  4. I.P. Freely says:

    J. Baker, bite your tongue! You will be humbled by the revelations yet to be revealed……………..

  5. Norbrook says:

    In terms of number of comments here, not to mention the entertainment value it provided, LTC Lakin’s case deserves an “honorable mention.” In terms of significance or complexity, and developing new legal precedents, no.

    I reserve the right to revise that opinion when the birthers finally drop that stunning revelation they’ve been hinting at.

  6. Rob M says:

    If Lakin makes the list, it will once again ping the birthers’ custom-made search engine, and they will proceed to once again copy and paste several hundred comments’ worth of the same crap we’ve put up with for months.

  7. Tami says:

    I vote for Martin v. NCIS. It had everything: interesting legal issues (although I think everyone agreed the outcome was a no-brainer), spurious accusations against Ms. Martin & her defense attorney and a blistering response, a DOJ attorney actually arguing no public right to attend a court-martial, and government capitulation.

    Would also vote for Gaskins v. Hoffman, for Judge Ham’s stinging and calling-it-for-what-it-is dissent, the use of the phrase “appellate CPR”, and CAAF’s grant of relief of imposing an injunction to prevent a Dubay that would have raised more problems and provided no answers.

  8. Colonel Jessup says:

    I.P.,
    Why don’t you take a big heaping sip of this nice cup of “Shut the F*%$ Up” coffee? There are no revelations, are there? Your boy pleaded guilty, like the guilty person he is. Your schtick is getting tired…..

  9. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Based on the I.P. addresses, it certainly looks like “I.P. Freely” and “Colonel Jessup” are the same person. Trying to stir something up?

  10. sg says:

    I tend to think of that other great Jack Nicholson character, Jack Torrance. Jack T. was the main character in The Shining, and he was crazier than an outhouse rat.
    It would explain a great many things.