CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

New Opinion: US v. Chandler

1/28/2021

8 Comments

 
🚨🚨​🚨
chandler.pdf
File Size: 243 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

8 Comments
Brenner Fissell
1/28/2021 11:21:48 am

This illustrates the awkwardness of having an official that is both quasi-judicial and quasi-prosecutorial.

Reply
Ambrose S.
2/17/2021 09:06:27 pm

For seasoned military practitioners, not awkward at all. Note the AFCCA and now CAAF have sided with the government, decisively. There are dozens of cases like this in the field, to include where SJA's shape charge sheets, pretrial advice, sentencing recommendations, etc. The interesting issues is why the appellate courts chose this fact pattern to review.

Reply
Donald G Rehkopf
1/28/2021 12:28:25 pm

I cannot imagine any State Bar Ethic's Committee being OK with this.

Reply
Bill Cassara
1/28/2021 02:25:07 pm

Unfortunately, as evidenced by the first thread today, I can't imagine any State Bar caring. "It's a military issue." I remember after an AF case once the TC tried to give my client the standard letter outlining their appellate rights. I told him he could not, as it was a direct communication with a represented client. We did a work around, but when I called the State Bar to get an advisory opinion, I was told "Meh. No big deal"

Reply
Philip D. Cave link
1/29/2021 05:04:20 pm

No problem with aTC communicating with a represented criminal client and giving legal advice. Legal advice you say. It is legal advice because the TC is telling the client that as a result of the trial these are his legal options as the prosecution sees it.Also, this comes after the trial in addition to the multi million page legal mumbo-jumbo covering all the infinitesimal possible bases of post-trial rights that the ADC has to prepare and which is also "discussed" with the client on the record before the sentence is in. I find it much more helpful to knowing if the client understands their post-trial appellate rights if the sentence is known. And, we shouldn't feel too comfortable with an SJA prepared notice considering all the post-trial error cases we are seeing as a result of the new rules.

Philip D. Cave link
1/30/2021 10:44:06 am

https://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/06-Public_Comment/cc_201408_MilitaryServicesRules_ProfConduct_Comms_RepresentedPersons_Sullivan.pdf

Ambrose S.
2/17/2021 09:08:04 pm

Hmm, what would be the basis based on the opinion?

Reply
Ambrose S.
2/17/2021 09:12:41 pm

Interesting take, what would the basis be based on the opinion?

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