No. 20-0359/NA. U.S. v. Salvador Jacinto. CCA 201800325. On consideration of Appellant's and Appellee's motion to file petitions for reconsideration of this Court's decision, United States v. Jacinto, 81 M.J. __, (C.A.A.F. July 15, 2021), and the motion from Protect Our Defenders as amicus curiae filed in support of Appellee's petition for reconsideration, it is ordered that the motion of Protect Our Defenders to file an amicus curiae memorandum is denied, that Appellee's petition for reconsideration is denied, that Appellant's petition for reconsideration is denied in part and granted in part, and that pursuant to the granted portion: that footnote 13 of the subject opinion is modified to read, "Because of the standard of review, any medical or psychiatric records that were generated after the convening authority's action are not relevant for appellate review of the granted issues.""
Comment: "The Court’s refusal to accept amicus briefs filed by attorneys with an actual interest in the case while trolling for amicus briefs that would presumably be authored by law students under the direction of a faculty member is counterintuitive and unfortunate.... It risks damaging its reputation by shutting out members of the bar while not merely catering to but actively soliciting the involvement of law students. Acceptance of amicus briefs should be done as a matter of course, as it is at the Supreme Court....Historically, the Court at times went further out of its way to accommodate amici than do other appellate courts, e.g., Murray v. Haldeman, 15 M.J. 337 (C.M.A. 1983) (mem.) (special hearing arrangements), and the repeated denials of leave to would-be amici reflect an unfortunate and inexplicable shift from that general approach. As Judge Baker (joined by Chief Judge Effron) commented in dissent in Green, 68 M.J. 206, at n.*, the rules do not preclude amicus briefs that seek to inform it as to how the issue(s) presented in a case will impact “the broader and uniform application of the law, including in [the amicus’s] case.” Nor do they “indicate the standards by which this court should evaluate such a request. In that context, the courthouse door should be open, not closed.” Id. "
E. Fidell, B. Fissell, & D. Sullivan, 1 CAAF Rules Guide § 26.03 (2021).
UPDATE: Brief below. It may be that this amicus was rejected for some procedural defects.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Global MJ Reform
LOC Mil. Law