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.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
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?