The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has proposed extending the rule allowing the government 60 days instead of the current 30 days to certify a case to CAAF.
Here is a link to the NIMJ comment on that proposed rule.
When the government certifies the case that generally means the appellant has received some relief from the court below. The relief could be a reduction in sentence, a dismissal of charge(s) for legal error, or a new trial. When the appellant has been granted relief there ought to be continued emphasis on a speedy resolution. This is especially true when the appellant is still confined and the relief granted could allow early or immediate release from confinement.
Here is a link to the NIMJ amicus brief in Miranda v. United States.
You can find a little more information about the case here, here, and here at NIMJ-CAAFLog.
Here is the QP with a proposed modification by NIMJ.
The petition for a writ of certiorari presents the following question:
Congress enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which directs that a voluntary guilty plea cannot be accepted by a military judge if the servicemember, after the plea, presents a matter that is inconsistent with that plea. The question presented is:
Are post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder substantial questions that a military judge must consider before accepting a servicemember’s guilty plea, when those disorders may have contributed to the charged misconduct?
Amicus National Institute of Military Justice believes the following threshold question is presented:
Is review under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 restricted to the particular issue(s) as to which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted review, or does it extend to all issues in the case?
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) will hear oral argument in United States v. Behenna at 0900, on 23 April 2012.
Counsel for Appellant: Jack B. Zimmermann
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Stephen E. Latino, JA, USA
Appellee’s brief is not due until 29 March 2012, after which Appellant has 10 days to file a reply.
Amicus Curiae Brief – National Institute of Military Justice (with law student participation)
Amicus Curiae Brief — The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Case Summary: GCM conviction of unpremeditated murder and assault. Granted issues questions (1) whether the military judge’s erroneous instruction limiting the right to self-defense deprived Appellant of his constitutional right to a fair trial; and (2) whether the government’s failure to disclose favorable information to the defense deprived Appellant of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Join Directors from the National Institute of Military Justice to discuss Military Justice in light of the recent events in Afghanistan.
Date: March 26, 2012
Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT
Teleconference Dial-in Instructions:
Continental US Dial-in: 1.888.439.7610
International Dial-in: 719.955.2424
Meeting Passcode: 2024298081
Security Code: 1330
Email address to send Questions for the Panelists During the Conference Call: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Moderator, Prof. Elizabeth Hillman, University of California Hastings College of the Law and President, National Institute of Military Justice
- Philip Cave, a NIMJ Director, retired Navy Judge Advocate, private practitioner with military law practice;
- Michael Navarre, a NIMJ Director, former active duty Navy Judge Advocate, and currently Special Counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Washington D.C.);
- Prof. Gary Solis, Georgetown Law School, a NIMJ Advisor; and retired Marine Corps Judge Advocate;
- Prof. Stephen Salzburg, George Washington Law School, NIMJ General Counsel, expert on criminal law and procedure.
Join our panel for a discussion regarding the military justice procedures in the potential courts-martial of SSGT Robert Bales, and other current military cases of public interest.
Click here for registration email