Seven months ago I wrote that Fosler [is] a case with a very short lifespan.” A few months later, as post-Fosler trailers piled up, I had second thoughts and began to think that “it’s too early to see just how wrong I was.” But Ballan cleared that bar, and on April 19, CAAF started to clear the decks:

No. 09-0519/NA.  U.S. v. Michael S. HODGE.  CCA 200601124.
No. 11-0227/NA.  U.S. v. Ros L. DAVIS.  CCA 201000302.
No. 11-0303/MC.  U.S. v. Thomas R. LIRLEY.  CCA 201000502.
No. 11-0383/NA.  U.S. v. Gary W. LUMPKINS, Jr.  CCA 201000554.
No. 11-0419/AR.  U.S. v. Bradley L. GUMP.  CCA 20100546.
No. 11-0420/AR.  U.S. v. Cody T. SMITH.  CCA 20100646.
No. 11-0427/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas A. PATLA.  CCA 20100809.
No. 11-0434/AR.  U.S. v. David J. ISENHOWER.  CCA 20100354.
No. 11-0453/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron M. MITCHELL.  CCA 20100713.
No. 11-0454/AR.  U.S. v. Oren A. REECE.  CCA 20100448.
No. 11-0554/AR.  U.S. v. Terry D. RORRO.  CCA 20100750.
No. 11-0580/AR.  U.S. v. Gregory A. ROBINSON.  CCA 20100495.
No. 11-0599/AR.  U.S. v. Michael D. DARROW.  CCA 20100816.
No. 11-0601/AR.  U.S. v. Robert A. MOORE.  CCA 20100662.
No. 11-0610/AR.  U.S. v. Marcus MELCHOR.  CCA 20100272.
No. 11-0647/MC.  U.S. v. Marchello K. HANCOCK.  CCA 201000400.
No. 11-0661/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua J. CHASTAIN.  CCA 20100994.
No. 12-0034/AR.  U.S. v. Joel L. KAIN, II.  CCA 20100490.
No. 12-0046/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel A. SMELSER.  CCA 20110114.
No. 12-0057/AR.  U.S. v. Roy E. BUHROW III.  CCA 20100911.
No. 12-0071/AR.  U.S. v. Robert M. BIGBACK.  CCA 20101044.
No. 12-0073/MC.  U.S. v. Mark A. LEUBECKER.  CCA 201100091.
No. 12-0106/AF.  U.S. v. Michael A. CISNEROS.  CCA S31871.
No. 12-0131/AR.  U.S. v. Robert L. MURCHISON.  CCA 20101052.
No. 12-0132/AR.  U.S. v. Kristopher M. HILOU.  CCA 20100770.
No. 12-0136/AR.  U.S. v. Colin M. JAMESON.  CCA 20090908.
No. 12-0164/AR.  U.S. v. Jason S. CHAMBERLAIN.  CCA 20100775.
No. 12-0165/MC.  U.S. v. Stephen L. SCARINGELLO.  CCA 201100192.
No. 12-0180/MC.  U.S. v. Ian T. GLOVER.  CCA 201100211.
No. 12-0182/AR.  U.S. v. Nathaniel D. BOZMAN.  CCA 20110077.
No. 12-0195/AR.  U.S. v. Chad E. GIBBS.  CCA 20110083.
No. 12-0222/AR.  U.S. v. Terrance L. ABERNATHY.  CCA 20110229.
No. 12-0224/AF.  U.S. v. Jamie D. MARTINEZ.  CCA S31779.
No. 12-0230/AR.  U.S. v. Jeffery A. HOBART.  CCA 20100119.
No. 12-0234/AF.  U.S. v. Jason W. TERWILLIGER.  CCA S31840.
No. 12-0249/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas E. DURHAM.  CCA 20100488.
No. 12-0259/AR.  U.S. v. Justin C. WIESENHOFER.  CCA 20100041.
No. 12-0275/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua S. FLEURY.  CCA S31944.
No. 12-0278/AR.  U.S. v. Richard J. MCINNISH.  CCA 20090923.
No. 12-0304/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremiah R. HOPKINS.  CCA 20100800.
No. 12-0305/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua C. AMBROSE.  CCA 20100042.
No. 12-0310/AF.  U.S. v. David W. SHANTEAU.  CCA 37969.
No. 12-0311/AF.  U.S. v. William R. MULLEN.  CCA 37959.
No. 12-0340/AR.  U.S. v. Renaldo R. FEBRES.  CCA 20100436.

In each of the above-referenced cases, on further consideration of the granted issue, and in view of United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

* BAKER, Chief Judge (concurring in the result in each of the above-referenced cases):

I adhere to my positions in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), and United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28, 36 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., concurring in the result), and concur in the results here.

No. 12-0263/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin D. GOODMAN.  CCA 20110144.
No. 11-0374/AR.  U.S. v. Lelan M. SHANKLES.  CCA 20100307.
No. 12-0140/AF.  U.S. v. Jeremiah C. SLACK.  CCA S31906.
No. 12-0199/AF.  U.S. v. Erik W. BULLENS.  CCA S31737.

In each of the above-referenced cases, on further consideration of the granted issue, and in view of the United States v. Nealy, 71 M.J. _ (C.A.A.F. 2012) and United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

* BAKER, Chief Judge (concurring in the result in each of the above-referenced cases):

I adhere to my positions in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), and United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28, 36 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., concurring in the result), and concur in the results here.

5 Responses to “The beginning of the end of Fosler”

  1. Peanut Gallery says:

    I get your point.  But then why is CAAF continuing to grant Fosler trailers? See the Daily Journal for 20, 24 Apr.

  2. Phil Cave says:

    PG, if nothing else it potentially preserves the right to petition the Supremes.  I take it none of the Fosler trailers have done that yet, else My Liege DHS or Zack would have let us know on the weekly tote board?

  3. Zachary Spilman says:
  4. Dew_Process says:

    And as the learned Rumpole advised, “Never Plead Guilty!”

  5. Joseph Wilkinson says:

    And as he also said – “The whole thing would be much easier without the clients.”