Knowing that it’s sometimes hard to access ACCA’s website due to problems with certificates (whatever that means), I’ve posted ACCA’s unpublished Akbar decision hereUnited States v. Akbar, No. ARMY 20050514 (A. Ct. Crim. App. July 13, 2012).  Judge Burton wrote for a unanimous panel affirming SGT Akbar’s death sentence and denying a petition for new trial.  I’ll be interested in the No Man’s analysis of the court’s rejection of Akbar’s Apprendi/Ring arguments.

I assume his defense team’s next step will be to request reconsideration en banc.

9 Responses to “ACCA’s Akbar opinion”

  1. Gene Fidell says:

    Perhaps I am missing something, but why is this decision not being published, and why are the names of so many of the participants being kept secret? And while I am kvetching, why are the SJAs named as if they were judges or counsel?

  2. stewie says:

    I believe they usually hide the names of defense counsel in IAC cases, although most everyone knows who they are, at least anyone who cares about this case.
     
    As to why it isn’t being published? Ya got me, have no clue.

  3. Gene Fidell says:

    I don’t see why counsel should not be named in IAC cases. I doubt they are referred to by letters in Art. III or state IAC decisions.

  4. Dew_Process says:

    A 51 page opinion affirming the convictions and death penalty that does not merit publication or precedential value??

    And I agree with Gene – especially in light of footnote 17, where they “name names!”  I mean, why even have a nametag on your uniform then?

  5. stewie says:

    not defending the practice, just noting it isn’t unusual. I happen to know who the defense counsel was in the last IAC case that came down a couple of years ago, but they used her initials too.

  6. Dew_Process says:

    I’m working on an IAC sentencing issue and just read Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 526 (2003).  Ouch!  Bad enough that SCOTUS finds IAC, but they “named names” of the public defenders involved!

  7. JB says:

    If you think ACCA never uses names, see their mem. op. released today in US v. Dodson – https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Portals/Files/ACCAOther.nsf/MODD/10F48E3434FB949F85257A3D006C1FB4/$FILE/mo-dodson,%20jm%20.pdf

  8. stewie says:

    Yeah but that doesn’t appear to be an IAC case (although one can say that the defense counsel wasn’t stellar).

  9. JB says:

    I think it would have been had they been able to find prejudice.