CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

CAAF decides United States v. Uribe

2/9/2021

3 Comments

 
Judge Ohlson wrote for himself and Judge Sparks finding that the judge erred in not recusing himself but Appellant was not prejudiced. Judge Maggs wrote for himself and Judge Crawford concurring in the judgement but disagreeing that the military judge abused discretion. Chief Judge Stucky concurred in part and dissented in part.
The military judge and senior trial counsel in this case “became friends” approximately four years before Appellant’s general court-martial. At trial the defense, joined by the Government, filed a motion to recuse the military judge because of this friendship but the military judge denied the motion. We granted review to determine “[w]hether the lower court erred in finding the military judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a joint motion to recuse.” United States v. Uribe, 80 M.J. 269 (C.A.A.F. 2020) (order granting review). We hold that the military judge abused his discretion but that Appellant is not entitled to relief under Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988).
This was a contested MJA Article 120 case.
The day before the defense filed a motion for recusal, Maj BJ requested an R.C.M. 802 conference due to his “friendship” with Judge R. Maj BJ cited both parties’ “concern[] about the perception of fairness of the proceedings, not only from the [Appellant’s] perspective … but also from an outsider[’s] as well.” During this conference, Maj BJ expressed “his concern [with] the ‘optics’ of [Judge R] presiding over a case where [Maj BJ] appeared as counsel.” Maj BJ also expressed “sympathy for [Appellant’s] perspective in general.” The next day the defense interviewed Maj BJ about his relationship with Judge Rosenow.

The defense then moved to recuse Judge R from Appellant’s court-martial because of his “personal relationship” with Maj BJ. This relationship, the defense argued, would undermine, “at least in part, public confidence in the fairness of the trial.” The Government did not oppose this motion and agreed with the motion’s facts. Judge R “interpreted [the Government’s position as] a joint request” for recusal because otherwise he “would insufficiently weigh the role the government took in raising the issue, the varying descriptions of its concerns across time and the shared need for both parties to receive a hearing free of doubts regarding the military judge’s integrity and impartiality.” Nonetheless, Judge R denied the parties’ joint request for recusal.
Note here that the trial counsel had concerns and expressed them--BZ.

Cheers, Phil Cave.
3 Comments
William Cassara
2/9/2021 07:02:16 pm

Judge Crawford found no error. Shocking.

Reply
Pepe Cossio
2/10/2021 02:13:20 am

Wait, that's not the same Judge Crawford that...it is.

Oh nice, called back from retirement to give another rubber stamp. Out of all the judges that could have been recalled.

Reply
Nathan Freeburg
2/9/2021 08:25:09 pm

Link here;

https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2020OctTerm/200267.pdf

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Links
    CAAF
    -Daily Journal
    -Current Term Opinions
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    Joint R. App. Pro.
    Global MJ Reform
    LOC Mil. Law
    Army Lawyer
    Resources

    Categories

    All
    Daily Journal
    MJ Reform
    Question Time
    Scholarship
    Top Of The Year 2021
    Unanimous
    Week In Review

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020

The views expressed on this website are expressed in the authors' personal capacities.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home