CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

D.C. Circuit splits the difference on judicial disqualification.

4/12/2021

4 Comments

 
As CAAFLog readers may remember, the D.C. Circuit heard argument this past January in a mandamus case to come out of the military commissions with potential relevance to military justice as a whole. Again, the question was whether a military judge serving on one of the military commissions violated judicial ethics by seeking employment elsewhere in the government without telling the parties. In 2019, the Circuit had vacated almost five years of proceedings in the Al-Nashiri case after Col Vance Spath, USAF, had secretly applied for an appointment as an immigration judge. Most recently, the Circuit confronted the same problem with CAPT Kirk Waits, USN, the military judge who initially presided over the case of United States v. Al-Iraqi (aka Nashwan Al-Tamir).

On Friday, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision denying the writ in In re Al-Tamir, though making a few notable holdings along the way that military justice practitioners are likely to find worthy of note. In something of a judicial eye roll, Judge Tatel, who wrote the opinion in both the Al-Nashiri and Al-Tamir cases, started his opinion for the Court by describing the situation as an "unfortunately familiar quandary." 

With no real debate over the merits of whether  CAPT Waits should have disqualified himself, the only real question the Court confronted was the remedy. Tamir had sought to have his case dismissed outright, a remedy the lower military commission courts had declined in favor of permitting Tamir to seek reconsideration of any decision rendered by the military commission that Tamir could show had been tainted by Waits' misconduct. 

At oral argument, the Circuit seemed concerned by the narrowness of the proposed remedy. This led counsel for the government to stipulate from the podium that Tamir could seek to have any ruling reconsidered without making a particularized showing that the ruling was tainted. Tamir suggested that this would still be inadequate, but the Circuit disagreed, finding that the government's concession gave Tamir everything that the vacatur had achieved in Al-Nashiri, "except that it affords al-Tamir the added benefit of allowing him to retain favorable rulings."

A trickier aspect of the case revolved around the job search of Matthew Blackwood, the "supervisory attorney advisor," who had served on Tamir's case for most of the last half-decade. The Court was clearly disturbed by Blackwood's job hunt, but ultimately got stuck on precisely what ethical standards governed an "attorney advisor" in the first place. The government had insisted that attorney advisors should be afforded the lenient rules afforded to judicial law clerks. Tamir had said the ordinary rules of judicial conduct should apply. The Court, for its part, figured that attorney advisors fell somewhere in between and the legal uncertainty over what rules applied proved fatal under the strict mandamus standard that applies in the D.C. Circuit. 

The Court, therefore, held that it needed resolve the issue. "We have some concerns about Blackwood’s failure to disclose to his supervising judges his pursuit of outside employment and his use of his work on the commission in his applications," the Court wrote. However, "we cannot say that his choices 'clearly and indisputably' gave rise to a conflict warranting recusal." The Court accordingly denied relief and left the merits to another day.

Michel Paradis

LOAC Editor

4 Comments
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
4/13/2021 11:46:27 am

This case involves two additional military judges other than Col Spath (ret) from the Al-Nashiri case. There may well be cases involving those two judges floating around in the military justice appellate arena, which in turn may raise a similar disqualification issue.

Reply
Isaac Kennen
4/13/2021 08:59:53 pm

So, for a judge presiding over a suspected terrorist's trial, it is unethical to look for employment with the government while that case is pending.

But, a judge presiding over a service member's court-martial can still serve in that capacity even if they are already on the government's payroll.

Does that makes sense?

Can there really be one - more protective - standard for a suspected terrorists, but another - less protective - standard for the rest of us?

Reply
AFDCAO
4/14/2021 06:31:44 am

You've oversimplified the issue. Every judge in every jurisdiction is on the government's payroll. I'm not sure how you expect to get around that. Pro bono judges?

Reply
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
4/14/2021 10:59:55 am

The first issue was that the MJ failed to disclose his seeking employment with the DoJ post-retirement while still presiding over cases - e.g., same MJ in Al-Nashiri failed to disclose this in that case as well as pending courts-martial. AFCCA said, "so what."

There are legal duties involved, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 208(a); and the DoD Joint Ethics Regulation [JER], DoD 5500.07-R.

There are also ethical duties involved: see, e.g., AFI 51-110, Professional Responsibility Program (December 2018), attachment 8, The Air Force Uniform Code of Judicial Conduct. One of the very reasons that the DoD promulgated the JER was to provide specific, ethical guidance for DoD members seeking post-retirement employment before they retire.

Recusal is also mandated by the Manual for Courts-Martial (2019)[MCM], RCM 902 lays out two standards for a MJ’s disqualification. The first disqualifies a judge from “any proceeding in which that military judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” RCM 902(a). Additionally, the RCM states that disqualification is required where a military judge has “an interest, financial or otherwise, that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding[.]” RCM 902(b)(5)(B).

There are indeed two standards and those accused and tried under the UCMJ get the short end of the stick.

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