This illustrates the awkwardness of having an official that is both quasi-judicial and quasi-prosecutorial.
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.
I cannot imagine any State Bar Ethic's Committee being OK with this.
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"
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.
Hmm, what would be the basis based on the opinion?
Interesting take, what would the basis be based on the opinion?