CAAF today released an interesting opinion dealing with whether a violation of state law is automatically dereliction of duty.  No, holds CAAF in this unanimous opinion written by Chief Judge Baker.  United States v. Hayes, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0090 (C.A.A.F. May 1, 2012).

3 Responses to “CAAF rejects per se military duty to obey state law”

  1. Phil Cave says:

    Much has been said, http://www.caaflog.com/2012/02/23/argument-recap-united-states-v-hayes-no-12-0900af/#comments.

    It appears in their creativity they missed the bit about argument is not evidence, in the same way as a proffer on a motion is not evidence unless the parties agree the proffer may be considered as fact and as evidence.

  2. Cap'n Crunch says:

    I think CAAF Judges read this blog.  Note my comment to the prior post:  “A second speeding offense in some states within a year constitutes a 4th degree misdemeanor. Are we to presume that Article 92 is violated by such an offense? Essentially they are converting state misdemeanors into federal felonies. And who in the Government Appellate Shop thought this one through? ”  And then note Footnote 4: “Taken to its logical conclusion, this proposition implies thatwillful violation of a posted speed limit could result in a military servicemember’s conviction under Article 92(3), UCMJ,and exposure to a sentence of six months of confinement, forfeiture of pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge.MCM pt. IV, para. 16.e.(3)(b)” 

  3. Phil Cave says:

    Cap’n Crunch, I think they were doing that at Quantico, maybe at Art. 15, about the time they were doing the DUI prosecutions?  Can someone answer that — the speeding on I-95 cases.