Last term, in United States v. Wilson, No. 13-0096/AR, (opinion) (CAAFlog case page), we thought, “Article 10: Not dead yet?” But then we were like, “Article 10: Dead.

Now CAAF says:

No. 13-0570/AF.  U.S. v. Steven A. DANYLO.  CCA 37916.  Review granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE ONLY CONSIDERED THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR APPELLANT’S ARTICLE 62 APPEAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPELLANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION.

II. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL WHEN HIS COURT-MARTIAL OCCURRED 350 DAYS AFTER HE WAS PLACED IN PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

And we are like, “No way!”

The AFCCA’s opinion is here. Notably, the charges were dismissed with prejudice after Appellant raised a speedy trial claim at the trial stage. But the Government appealed, the AFCCA reversed (after hearing oral argument; recording here), and Appellant entered conditional pleas of guilty.

4 Responses to “Are reports of Article 10’s death greatly exaggerated?”

  1. EGNB says:

    And then I was like, “Yes way, Ted!  Yes way!”
    And Ted was like, “Whoa.”

  2. johnny says:

    For those of us who are done with the 80s…  “Things were going well, until she wanted… and I was all “NO WAY!”, and she was all “YES WAY!”, and I was like… but I’ve told you too much already.”  Sounds like a 120 case in the making…  The things you hear when watching movies with your kids.

  3. Cap'n Crunch says:

    Does it strike anyone else as disingenuous for AFCCA to conclude no prejudice from delay when pretrial confinement exceeded the sentence?

  4. stewie says:

    article 10 is pining for the fjords.