CAAF today granted review of this issue:  “WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS ON SELF-DEFENSE WERE INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THIS CONSTITUTED HARMLESS ERROR.”  United States v. Stanley, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0143/AR (C.A.A.F. March 31, 2011).  ACCA’s unpublished opinion in the case is available hereUnited States v. Stanley, No. ARMY 20050703 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 29, 2010).

Sergeant Stanley’s lead appellate defense counsel is our very own Mary o’St. Mary’s Hall.

One Response to “CAAF grants review of instruction issue”

  1. bill almett says:

    Isn’t there a big problem with ACCA’s rationale? They say harmless error, but that harmlessness presumes the panel believed one version of events, which admittedly has leaves no possibility of self-defense. But couldn’t the panel have believed the accused’s version and still convicted based on the instructions given, hence the assigned error? Seems like ACCA to a big shortcut here. The fact that DC didn’t object to the instructions is a big problem, though.