CAAFlog » M. T. Hall

Exit Justice Souter

M. T. Hall — Fri, 01 May 2009 12:13:00 +0000

Has Justice Souter decided that having the world’s greatest job no longer compensates for the fact that it is, in his words, in the world’s worst city? If so, then the President will be considering Court nominees sooner in his administration than many expected. Much is made of whether presidential and Congressional candidates have military service, but not so for Court nominees.
Although the Supreme Court has historically had a strong showing of veterans (including some noteworthy combat veterans) in its ranks, only three of the current members, by my calculation, have military experience: J. Stevens was a LCDR in the USNR during WWII (and apparently earned a Bronze Star for code-breaking services), J. Kennedy was a PFC in the California National Guard in 1961, and J. Alito was a Signal Corps officer inactive in the Army Reserve for several years.

Admittedly, there are a host of critical considerations at stake for selecting someone for the Court. But serving in uniform provides a unique perspective on a number of issues that a justice is likely to encounter during his or her service on the Court. And if the speculation proves true that the next nominee will be a woman, the number of veterans on the court is likely to remain at three.

LTC Alan Dunavan (Ret.)

M. T. Hall — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:20:00 +0000

Army JAGCnet announces the passing of LTC Alan Dunavan (Ret.), the uniformed Command Judge Advocate for the USDB between 1999 and 2006. Alan most recently served as the Deputy Command Judge Advocate for the USDB when that position was created as a DA civilian position. If I’ve put the link in correctly above, you can read a more complete bio at the JAGCnet website, which also provides information on where to send condolences to his widow Janet. I can readily think of several occasions where Alan, arguably the “corporate memory” for confinement policies, provided information that helped me help my clients. Thanks for your service to your country, Alan, and God bless.

The universe of Amateur Hour fans expands . . .

M. T. Hall — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:39:00 +0000

The Appellate Law and Practice Blog shares CAAFlog’s dislike of student amici and credits CAAFlog with beating him to the punch. Given my multiple physical (okay, technical) handicaps, I make no effort to provide the link and am simply pasting the blog entry below.

Amateur hour at the First
According to the “Official JD Admissions Blog at Harvard Law School” A Harvard 3L will be arguing before the First. The results of this case will bind future panels and all District Courts in the First Circuit.*
*I am not the first blawger to disapprove of law students arguing before Courts. CAAFlog beat me to it.
Posted by S. COTUS on April 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Is it time time gets a nip and tuck at CAAF?

M. T. Hall — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:52:00 +0000

The Eye has it on good authority that CAAF is considering a little nip and tuck on filing times in 2008. One anticipated move is a reduction in first enlargements of time from 30 to 15 days unless, of course, there are extraordinary circumstances warranting extra time.

Parkinson’s Law states that work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion. Will less time necessarily result in less work?

The Long Arm of Long

M. T. Hall — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:25:00 +0000

This week’s FedWeek “Armed Forces News” email newsletter notes upcoming changes to the privacy notice on government computers, apparently prompted by the decision in United States v. Long, 64 M.J. 57 (C.A.A.F. 2006). And yes, the statement of the case is inaccurate.

“5. No Right to Computer Privacy——————————-Beginning Dec. 12, Defense Department computers will carry new notices which will clearly tell both civilian and uniformed users that they have no right to privacy while using them. By using the computers, the notices will say, employees automatically understand and consent to monitoring of their emails. Shorter versions of the notices will also appear on government-owned BlackBerrys and other smaller electronic devices. The new notices come in the wake of a recent landmark decision by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, involving a service member who used a government computer to discuss an impending drug test and the steps she took to mask her own drug use. She was convicted at court-martial based on evidence seized from her government computer, but another lower appeals court overturned the conviction because the existing language of the notice did not clearly state there was no right to privacy on government computers. The CAAF decision reversed the lower appeals court’s ruling.”

PS – You can sign up for the newsletter at www.fedweek.com. It usually contains about 10 short bursts on personnel issues, legislative initiatives, etc., and provides URL’s to promotion board results. It’s released every Friday afternoon.

Duty, Duty, Duty

M. T. Hall — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:20:00 +0000

I just saw my first Jury Duty stamp, which the post office website states was released two months ago. It depicts 12 profiles of heads in various colors all facing to the right, with the words “JURY DUTY Serve with Pride.”

Maybe the post office should also release one to honor duty as a court-martial panel member – show only 5 profiles, make it postcard rate (to reflect the fewer numbers), and use it as a PSA to avoid that sleeping panel member issue by stating on the stamp “PANEL DUTY Serve Alert.” But no need to change the direction of the heads.

Blue and silver replaces burgandy and gold

M. T. Hall — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:53:00 +0000

CAAF has issued its latest soft-cover rules booklet, as amended through August 1, 2007. Toss the old burgandy and gold edition – this edition is blue and silver.

CAAFLog will probably view this as some silent tribute by CAAF to JMTG’s Air Force heritage.

Huzzah for 15 minutes of fame

M. T. Hall — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:43:00 +0000

In pondering all these comments about oral argument, I feel compelled to confess that I have long wondered, over my Madeira and weevelly biscuit, why CCA’s don’t embrace more openly CAAF’s practice of restricting some oral arguments to 15 minutes per side in cases involving an issue that would lend itself neatly to compact argument. At least two of the CCA’s have rules stating that oral arguments will normally be 30 minutes per side, but frankly, some issues just don’t warrant “the full monty” (and you, sir, just leave that visual right there – that phrase was around long before the movie made it to America) of an hour’s time. Nothing requires either side to use their full 30, but knowing as soon as the oral argument is ordered that it’s a 15-minute-per-side hearing would help all concerned to tighten their focus (something The Eye always strives for). The CCA, just like CAAF, can always extend that time through questions should it wish to do so. One commonwealth reportedly expedites its appellate docket by giving attorneys head of the line privileges before lunch in exchange for a 5-minute argument cap. I’d say 5 is too little but, sometimes, 30-per-side may be too much. Let the CCA judges set the clock (not literally, of course; we wouldn’t want to take that away from the commissioners). A collateral benefit might be more motions/grants for oral argument. And if the CCA’s are already doing this, my apologies – I’m a bit behind the times.

FY06 Annual Report

M. T. Hall — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:26:00 +0000

The Eye observes that the FY06 Annual Report has been posted on the CAAF website. I’d attempt a link to it but The Eye has never moved past signal flags as its primary means of communication, so The Eye expects each of you to do your duty and find it yourself. For those of you who are curious about trends in the number of oral arguments at the various CCA’s, no surprises this year — the numbers remain low. NMCCA had 10 in FY06 and averaged 9.6 arguments per year over the past five FY’s. During that same period, AFCCA averaged 13 a year, although the Appellate Defense and Appellate Government reported different numbers for FY06 arguments. I saw no comparable chart for ACCA but then again, I am visually challenged. The NMCCA and AFCCA numbers compel me to ask: are the numbers low simply because counsel don’t request oral argument (either for tactical reasons or in an effort to avoid futile hours of preparation for a quixotic exercise)? Or are the courts denying motions for oral arguments?

PBS Supreme Court

M. T. Hall — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:41:00 +0000

A new series on the Supreme Court premiers tonight on PBS in most viewing areas. Perhaps this will prompt a few justices to man the studio phones during the next PBS pledge drive . . .

Show me the numbers

M. T. Hall — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:20:00 +0000

OK, I can take a hint. Two hints, as a matter of fact. So, I followed the “so easy a caveman can use it” link to the AFCCA, only to find the day’s equivalent of Ye Olde Rubber Stamp. Which got me to pondering, as I do most Friday nights, why don’t the Annual Reports — the format for which seems to have remained unchanged since 1984 — tell us just a wee bit more about appeals than simply the CCA workload? How about outcome? If the TJAG’s are tasked with reporting the number of acquittals and the number of cases where relief was denied in an Article 69 review, why not report the percentage of CCA cases where relief was granted? Some relief. Any relief. Certainly such information would be of more interest to those who read the Annual Report in the MJ’s than the number of Article 138 complaints filed in any given year.