Tuesday was a big day for military justice trailer parks.  CAAF granted on this issue from a Navy case:

WHETHER ARTICLE 120(c) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED WHERE: THE MILITARY JUDGE (1) REQUIRED APPELLANT TO PROVE THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF CONSENT AND MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; (2) DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENSES HAD BEEN PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; AND THEN (3) FAILED TO DISMISS THE CHARGES SUA SPONTE AS REQUIRED BY RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 917.

United States v. Esochea-Sanchez, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0559/NA (C.A.A.F. Sept. 13.) (order granting review).  CAAF ordered that no briefs would be filed.

Plus, CAAF granted review of three more Fosler trailers:   United States v. Fairley, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0595/NA (C.A.A.F. Sept. 13, 2011); United States v. Dietz, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0611/AR (C.A.A.F. Sept. 13, 2011); and United States v. Moses, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0626/AR (C.A.A.F. Sept. 13, 2011).

3 Responses to “Navy snaps up a lot in the Prather trailer park, as well as lot 57 in the Fosler trailer park; Army grabs lots 58 and 59 in the Fosler trailer park”

  1. Silence Dogood says:

    A Prather trailer, or a Stewart trailer, since Stewart tests the application of Prather the way Fosler tested the application of Melendez-Diaz, Miller, etc? Not that it matters. If CAAF gets it right, and notwithstanding Medina, it is still prime appellant real estate, IMHO.

  2. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Point well taken, S.D. I shall henceforth refer to these as Stewart trailers.

  3. Silence Dogood says:

    Belay my last. Resendiz-Ponce, not Melendez-Diaz.