CAAF’s opinion in Ellerbrock is available here.  The court rules for the defense 3-2.  Judge Stucky wrote for the majority.  Judge Baker and Judge Ryan dissent separately.

I’m under the gun again tonight, so further commentary about the just-completed term will have to wait for another day.

6 Responses to “CAAF issues last opinion of the term”

  1. Ama Goste says:

    Without crunching the #s myself yet, it seems there were a lot of 3-2 decisions this term, with different blocs in the majority and dissent throughout the term.

  2. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Dwight Sullivan “under the gun.” It started in late 2008. There was a break from summer 2009 to fall 2010, and it’s picked up again, with nearly half the firearms threats coming in just the last six months. And it’s not just an increase in frequency, for the phrase “big time” has popped up twice in the last five weeks. High time, good sir, for a vacation!

    31 Aug 2011 I’m under the gun again tonight
    30 Aug 2011 Unfortunately I’m under the gun big time tonight
    27 July 2011 I’m under the gun tonight
    27 July 2011 I’m under the gun big time tonight
    14 Apr 2011 But I’m under the gun tonight
    14 Oct 2010 I’ve been under the gun this week
    22 July 2009 I’m under the gun today and I’m tied up all day tomorrow
    14 Apr 2009 I don’t have much time tonight . . . (have I mentioned I’m under the gun tonight?)
    2 Feb 2009 I’m under the gun this week
    10 Dec 2008 But I’m under the gun this week
    19 Nov 2008 I’m under the gun this week

  3. Ama Goste says:

    …and people think the USAF has cushy schedules.

  4. Peanut Gallery says:

    My uneducated, casual observation is that the defense prevailed in the majority of this term’s decisions.

  5. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    I had a light day, and since DS was under the gun, I did some number-crunching. 46 published opinions. The Gov’t prevailed in 25, the defense in 16, and 5 were split. (Some or all findings affirmed, some or all sentence set aside.)

    14 cases were decided 3-2. 5 for G, 7 for D, 2 split. 17 cases were 5-0, 13 for G, 3 for D, 1 split. There were more 5-0 decisions early in the term, more 3-2 later in the term.

    5 decisions were per curiam, 1 for G, 4 for D. The remaining cases had a mixture of concurring decisions and partial dissents. Of those, 6 for G, 2 for D, 2 split.

    Your math may vary. I did not dig deep into the specific issues, but the G prevailed on Art. 120. D came out ahead on confrontation and the continuing evolution of Art. 134, and to a degree, LIOs.

    Regards,
    CS

  6. Ama Goste says:

    Thanks, Admiral!