Did you listen to the oral argument in United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. May 2, 2017) (CAAFlog case page)?
Hukill was a trailer to Hills (CAAFlog case page) for judge-alone cases. But rather than focus on the difference between a panel and a military judge, the Army Appellate Government Division used the case as a vehicle to re-litigate the underlying holding of Hills.
It lost. Bigly.
The oral argument audio (link) is entertaining. In particular, less than a minute into the argument by counsel for the Army Appellate Government Division, Judge Ryan said the following:
The Government – the Government writ large – had every opportunity to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court, and it may have tried to convince the Solicitor General of that, and may have been told no, I don’t really know. But [what] I do know is that they didn’t seek cert. And so I don’t want to go through what we went through with the Air Force where we refused to accept that the opinion says what it says and then we’ll decide this case however we decide it, and then if you don’t like that we’ll get petitions for rehearing and then petitions for rehearing on any trailer cases, etc. etc. etc.
The segment begins about 16:14 into the recording. Or click here for a clip.
So, having been chastised by Judge Ryan for the general failure of the Government writ large (or perhaps just the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps) to accept CAAF’s rulings, what do you think the Army Appellate Government Division did after CAAF ruled against it unanimously?
It requested reconsideration, of course.
From CAAF’s daily journal on Thursday, June 15, 2017:
No. 17-0003/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA 20140939. On consideration of Appellee’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s decision, United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration be, and the same is, hereby denied.