In this post back in September, we noted the Coast Guard’s interlocutory appeal of a military judge’s ruling that clarified that a specification, in which the Government attempted to charge the accused with forcible rape in violation of Article 120(a) (2006), states only the lesser offense of aggravated sexual contact in violation of Article 120(e) (2006). A month later, in this post, we noted the Coast Guard CCA’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider such an appeal, because the judge didn’t actually dismiss anything (as the offense of rape was never alleged in the first place).
But then, as discussed in a February post titled: The Coast Guard CCA declines to create its own jurisdiction (and then the Government appeals), the Government petitioned the CCA for “an order directing [the military judge] to dismiss Charge I Specification 1, so that the United States may seek interlocutory review of [the military judge]’s ruling concerning that specification under Article 62.” The CCA didn’t kill many trees rejecting the Government’s petition.
CAAF’s rejection was even more abrupt:
Misc. No. 14-8012/CG. United States, Appellant v. Christine N. CUTTER, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Military Judge, Appellee, and William R. Bisel, Aviation Maintenance Technician Third Class, U.S. Coast Guard, Real Party in Interest. CCA 001-14. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said writ-appeal is hereby denied.