Today CAAF decided United States v. Wilson, No. 13-0096/AR (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), finding that Appellant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 10 was not violated, affirming the decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

Judge Erdmann writes for the court, joined by Judges Ryan and Stucky. Chief Judge Baker dissents, joined by Senior Judge Cox who also writes a separate dissenting opinion.

As in Mizgala, 61 M.J. at 129, we share the military judge’s concern that there appear to be “several periods during which the Government seems to have been in a waiting posture.” The Government is tasked with handling cases with “reasonable diligence,” id., and the inattention to timeliness in Wilson’s case is troubling. However, the stipulated timeline, adopted by the military judge as a finding of fact, provides a factual explanation for much of the delay attributable to the Government. The timeline provides context and explanations which reflect reasonable pretrial decisions and activities including potential immunity for other actors, the unit’s pending deployment to Afghanistan, drug testing by USACIL, and “complicated” pretrial negotiations.

The delays identified by the military judge weigh against the Government, however, that weight is minimized when balanced against the Government’s explanations as to the overall time period. There is no evidence indicating that the Government was engaged in a “deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense,” which would weigh heavily against the Government. Johnson, 17 M.J. at 259; Barker, 407 U.S. at 531.

Slip op. at 14-15. More to follow.

6 Responses to “Article 10: Dead.”

  1. Lieber says:

    Is this really surprising though?  Under our current optempo, with deployed witnesses; jurisdictional complexities, classified evidence etc….it’s hard not to see a strict 120-day rule as an archaicism.  Now throw in that pretrial confinement is quite rare in the military (and PTC is generally to the benefit of the Accused anyway) and that delay is usually more prejudicial to the government case than the defense….all of this may not be doctrinal…but them’s the facts on the ground.

  2. Cap'n Crunch says:

    I don’t read the Wilson case as killing the RCM 707, 120 day deadline.  But I do see CAAF as basically limiting Article 10 to the confines of Barker, and RCM 707, which essentially is a 120 day clock, with time periods attributable to the government or the accused excluded. 

  3. stewie says:

    It’s not dead, it’s just resting.

  4. Zachary D Spilman says:

    It’s not resting. It’s passed on. It’s no more. Ceased to be. Expired and gone to meet its maker.

    It’s a stiff. Bereft of like. It rests in peace. If we hadn’t bound it in the manual, it’d be pushing up the daisies.

    Its metabolic processes are now history. It’s off the twig. It’s kicked the bucket. Shuffled off its mortal coil. Run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

    This is an ex-Article!

  5. Babu says:

    I’ve always been of the belief that if you are a TC, you are a boot until you have survived your first Article 10 motion. 

  6. publius says:

    Nah.  It’s pining for the fjords.