CAAFlog interns reviewed all CAAF opinions from the 2019-2020 term. Only four of twenty-five cases did not involve a conviction for a sex-related offense (including child pornography): Turner, Hennis, Easterly, & Muller. This is obviously not normal for a general criminal jurisdiction. The disparity raises a number of questions, and perhaps some of you have tentative answers. 1. Is this new? 2. What is the cause of this? 3. What is lost (or gained) by a court having "sex on the brain"? Is there is a risk that general doctrines, analyzed in light of sex crimes, will develop in an aberrant or skewed manner? Is there a risk that the reform movement will become singularly focused on sex crimes because these are the only cases reviewed by the highest military court? Brenner FissellEIC
11 Comments
Lone Bear
3/17/2021 10:06:10 pm
A lot of sex assault cases go forward on very weak evidence, and tend toward appellate error. It’s larger a result of Convening Authorities sending cases forward based on victim preferences vs. evidence. This eats up bandwidth for cases that could otherwise be tried quickly. It would be better if experts made these decisions instead of untrained and unqualified Commanders.
Reply
3/17/2021 11:42:16 pm
This current trend very likely represents a convergence of two central contemporary factors in US MJ practice.
Reply
Lone Bear
3/18/2021 12:37:41 am
Brian,
Reply
Donald G Rehkopf
3/18/2021 10:42:56 am
While I agree with the astute commentary above, I think a broader, historical analysis may be in order. 25 years ago, the crime du jour was drugs - anything and everything involving drugs went to court. USAFE went so far as to mandate that all drug case had to go to a GCM in its idiotic COUNTERPUSH program. That abated significantly after SCOTUS decided Crawford and Melendez-Diaz, and CAAF decided Blazier.
Reply
3/18/2021 11:24:05 am
Can we say this is the adverse effect on good order and discipline by Congress and the media driving the docket to the exclusion of other serious GoD offenses; likely because of a combination of issues: funding/personnel to handle the enlarged docket, "baseless charges" being referred to trial because the 32 is less of a "bulwark against baseless charges;" and the way in which amendments have been handled has caused many legal issues and confusions.
Reply
Donald G Rehkopf
3/19/2021 12:40:37 pm
Phil - in the early 1980's when I was practicing in Germany, it was the "H & H" duo - Hash and Heroin - as that's when the urinalysis program went crazy.
Reply
Dwight Sullivan
3/18/2021 12:00:31 pm
When I became a trial counsel in Okinawa in 1988, bad check cases were by far the most prevalent cases on our docket. One almost never sees one of those cases anymore.
Reply
William Cassara
3/18/2021 12:49:19 pm
In Germany at the same time it was bar fights.
Reply
Lone Bear
3/18/2021 04:57:02 pm
Good to see all the Mil Jus legends posting. Way less anonymous posters on the new CAAFLOG.
Reply
3/20/2021 09:20:26 am
I think at the same we might clarify or qualify the history of what offenses most appear on the docket.
Reply
Donald G Rehkopf
3/20/2021 02:17:30 pm
Phil - without answering your question, is not the issue more basic? If the premise is "Good Order and Discipline," [GoD] [and I'm not going to jump into that debate here], the current system is an abysmal failure. GoD presupposes that because it is the responsibility of the Commander concerned, that the Commander have at his/her disposal, a wide range of tools, as "justice" (military or not) is not a one size fits all endeavor.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
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
Archives
April 2022
|