A.J.W., a case to follow

NMCCA issued a published decision in A.J.W. v. United States, et. al., __ 80 M.J.  ___ (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2021).

The CAAF Daily Journal for 2 February shows a "Notice is given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.

The NMCCA concluded they had jurisdiction. Did they after trial is complete?
The decision seems to imply the case was still in the post-trial process somewhere up to the point the record is forwarded for review by the CA. But what if the case was in the mail to the CCA?

The NMCCA concluded the petitioner failed to satisfy the second  prong for a writ.

​Don Rehkopf  commented on this case here. Don concludes,

The appellate case law is muddled at best, core constitutional principles such as confrontation and due process minimalized or ignored, and an apparent lack of critical cerebration by defense counsel have created a hydra-headed legal monster. And yes, Congress has put its proverbial thumbs on the scales of justice–something that calls for action, not inaction–something that will not happen by its own inertia.

I'd characterize the issue of victim impact testimony or statements as something from the wild west--as we see from time to time with any number of legal issues.  Let us see what the Sherriff' (CAAF) has to say. For example, the recent decision of ACCA in United States v. Holland and others percolating up.

​Cheers, Phil Cave.