Last month, in this post, I discussed a pair of petitions for extraordinary relief filed at CAAF in which the Air Force Government Appellate Division (appearing as the United States) asked the court for an order directing the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals to conduct an in camera review of appellate exhibits prior to allowing appellate counsel to view them.

Since that post, three additional such petitions were filed.

CAAF denied two of the petitions yesterday:

No. 16-0251/AF. United States, Petitioner v. United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent and Jerry C. Harrison, Real Party in Interest. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

No. 16-0270/AF. United States, Petitioner v. United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent and Marcus A. Mancini, Real Party in Interest. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

Update: On February 11 CAAF denied the other three petitions.

6 Responses to “CAAF won’t stop detailed appellate counsel from reviewing sealed material”

  1. Dew_Process says:

    Thank goodness!  Has anyone checked the water supply in that office????

  2. DCGoneGalt says:

    Water?  I thought cults, in this case the DOD Sexual Assault, Inc. cult, spiked the Kool-Aid rather than the water? 

  3. Dew_Process says:

    @ DCGG – fair enough, I was thinking of the lead situation in Flint, MI, but you’re probably closer to the truth!

  4. Passing By says:

    It was the Martin O’Malley of government writs.  Nothing stops you from trying…even if you have no chance of winning.

  5. stewie says:

    Best MO’M joke I’ve heard comes from Triumph…what code name does Martin O’Malley use? Martin O’Malley.

  6. DCGoneGalt says:

    stewie:  Triumph the Insult Comic Dog’s coverage of the debates has been stellar for years.  He’s having a field day this year with both parties.  my favorite thus far was when he suggested to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz that six debates was the right number because it gave each of the three Hillary robots two chances to prove it was the most lifelike.  Even some of the DNC staffers in the background just broke down in laughter over that one.