ACCA has issued an opinion, dated 21 July 2011, affirming the findings and sentence in 1LT Michael C. Behenna’s case.

Due to the opinion’s size, I had to post it in six separate files:

[UPDATED]  or just one here, whichever [Hacked by No Man].

13 Responses to “ACCA affirms findings and sentence in Behenna”

  1. Ama Goste says:

    Thanks, CAAFlog!

  2. soonergrunt says: generates a HTTP 500 Internal Server Error.

  3. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    SG–works for me. Try again. We had some problems uploading initially, but they seem to be resolved. It is a big file, almost 2 MB.

  4. soonergrunt says:

    No Man–must have been something at work causing that. Considering that VA’s network (I work at the VA now, yay, me!) is freaking horrible, that’s most likely.
    Got it now and will read it shortly.

  5. Dwight Sullivan says:


    The opinion is also now on ACCA’s website here:$FILE/oc-behenna,%20mc.pdf

  6. soonergrunt says:

    I read it. I can only say wow.
    I understand 1LT Behenna’s family fighting so hard for him. I sympathize, and I hope that were I ever in trouble, that my loved ones would fight so hard for me. Having said that, I don’t see from the record here, including the Accused’s own testimony, how the Court-Martial panel could’ve found any differently, or how ACCA could’ve found any differently. I am not, of course, a lawyer.
    Given their previous statements here and elsewhere, I fully expect the family to fully support 1LT Behenna in an appeal to CAAF. What grounds would he do so, and would he realistically have a chance to prevail?
    Thanks in advance for the answer to the clueless non-lawyer.

  7. Rob M says:

    My opinions on this case are well documented in comments from about nine months ago, so no need to rehash. Though one thing I know now that I didn’t know before from reading the appellate briefs, the judge did give the standard benchbook self-defense instruction before he gave the initial aggressor instruction (I was under the impression that he hadn’t). But I think its kind of neat that nearly every issue we discussed in that thread ages ago was addressed by CAAF.

  8. soonergrunt says:

    Today, driving home from work, I caught the tail end of a report on KOSU (NPR station out of Stillwater, and the only good thing to come out of OSU) that covered the ACCA decision and stated that the Behenna family indicated they intended to appeal the case to CAAF.

  9. Rob M says:

    No shocker there. But no guarantee CAAF grants review…I’ll leave it to smarter brains than mine to find flaws in the ACCA panel’s unanimous opinion. And with EJMA still nonexistent, I think Behenna’s road may have ended here.

  10. soonergrunt says:

    Umm, I know that I’m a legal neophyte (thanks, word a day calendar,) but what the hell does the Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association have to do with the Behenna case?

  11. Ama Goste says:

    SG, Eskimo Joe’s isn’t bad, but I guess that’s not technically OSU itself.

    EJMA is Equal Justice for our Military Act. Rob M is making the point that, if CAAF declines to review the Behenna case, the US Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to review the case. The EJMA would correct that problem, but DoD is against the Act.

  12. soonergrunt says:

    Thanks, AG. I couldn’t find anything under the acronum EJMA except the manufactuers’ association, and while the sudden thought that I might need some expansion joints some day and now knew where to look was a good thing, I didn’t see how that knowledge applied to the instant case. But I DID get to use a word from my calendar in context.
    And in as much as Eskimo Joe’s is in Stillwater, that’s OK. OSU itelf? Meh.

  13. The Fifth Horseman (I fell off and they left me) says:

    I noticed that the civilian defense counsel also handled the appeal.

    Could a new defense counsel at CAAF raise an issue (for the first time) of IAC (failure to raise PTSD, etc.)?