This is a well-written petition. The last few I’ve read have been blah, but this one is really nicely done. A good example for anybody in high-quality legal writing.
Yes, I second that about the petition being very well written. It is a tactic where the drafter attempts to persuade by explaining that their side is advocating a more reasonable position and that the other side is the one that would be a precedent requiring greater deviation from current law or policy. Of course here the trick is also to convince them to take the case. I was impressed with the argument that a constitutional right such as the prohibition against double jeopardy should not be used against you to your detriment and instead it only serves to protect. I am not sure if the policy that favors state jurisdiction for prosecution of retirees is statutory or regulatory, but this may make a difference. Regardless, I was persuaded a bit even though I am not that sympathetic toward Hennis because I think he did commit murder.
As I read the facts and came across the Army's discharging him, and then immediately re-enlisting him, I wondered why.
He was on active duty at the time of conviction. He was on active duty at the time of his 1989 re-trial and acquittal. Unless he for some reason asked to be discharged and re-enlisted, the administrative action seemed out of place. I'm not clear on whether the post-retirement court-martial would have been significantly impacted in the absence of his 1989 1-day break in service.
When CAAF unanimously reversed my own wrongful conviction, I had never left active duty, and quickly transitioned from appellate leave back into uniform...no discharge involved.
Week In Review