Volume 66 of the Air Force Law Review has been distributed in print form, though it doesn’t appear to be available online yet.

The issue includes Lt Col Jeremy Weber’s Herculean review of every online opinion from all four CCAs over a five-year period to study the exercise of their sentence appropriateness power.  Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Stone Weber, Sentence Appropriateness Relief in the Courts of Criminal Appeals, 66 A.F. L. Rev. 79 (2010).  Among his interesting findings was that over the five-year period, the four CCAs combined provided relief on the basis of sentence comparison in a grand total of one case.  See United States v. Lambert, No. NMCCA 200401410 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 27, 2006).  Here are the stats on the number of times the CCA found a sentence inappropriately severe over those five years:  ACCA–0; NMCCA–6; AFCCA–11; CGCCA–2.  There were several additional cases in which CCAs granted Tardif relief for unreasonable post-trial delay without regard to prejudice or in the absence of prejudice:  ACCA–11; NMCCA–37; AFCCA–4; CGCCA–5.

The issue also includes a background piece about the Supreme Court’s Goldman v. Weinberger decision.  While Goldman isn’t a military justice case, the article explains that the case arose from two Air Force courts-martial in which Capt Goldman testified while wearing a yarmulke.  Samuel J. Levine, Untold Stories of Goldman v. Weinberger:  Religious Freedom Confronts Military Uniformity, 66 A.F. L. Rev. 205 (2010).

Also in the non-military justice category, my treasured former colleague Maj Tim “Monty” Cox has an article in the issue:  Major Timothy M. Cox, Promoting Integrity from Without:  A Call for the Military to Conduct Outside, Independent Investigations of Alleged Procurement Integrity Act Violations, 66 A.F. L. Rev. 225 (2010).

4 Responses to “New issue of Air Force Law Review in print”

  1. Gene Fidell says:

    How odd that the hard copy appears before the online version; these days the opposite seems to be the norm. The rarity of sentence adjustment by the CCAs raises serious questions, not only based on the numbers per se (counter-argument: sentences are more sensible and less aberrant because of (i) the number of bench trials and (ii) better work by counsel during the sentencing phase than in 1951?), but also the disparity among services (ACCA’s zero rate). I’ll look forward to reading LtCol Weber’s article. Mr. Levine’s looks like good teaching material, based on the summary.

  2. Christopher Mathews says:

    Agree with Gene that it’s odd to see the hard-copy publication out before the electronic version — especially when one considers that the publisher almost certainly used an electronic version in preparing to go to print.

  3. Michael Lowrey says:

    Agree with Gene that it’s odd to see the hard-copy publication out before the electronic version — especially when one considers that the publisher almost certainly used an electronic version in preparing to go to print.

    I’ll take it a step further: In 2011, it would be shocking (and embarrassing) if it weren’t sent to the publisher as an electronic file. And not just in Word, but rather in a desktop publishing program such as InDesign. That’s the way the publishing business works in 2011. Not a new development either. DTP software has been common since teh late 1980s.

    It’s quite easy to generate a pdf version when using DTP software.

  4. Avid Reader says:

    The electronic version is now on NIMJ’s blog.
    www.nimjblog.org