Post-trial delay.

In United States v. Remsburg, No. 20070161 (A. C.t. Crim. App. 30 January 2009), the court looked at three issues:  whether the judge improperly restricted defense solicitation of favorable victim impact testimony; whether the judge was mean to the defense counsel; and post-trial delay.  On the post-trial delay issue the court notes:

In his addendum, the SJA recommended the CA reduce appellant’s sentence by two months because “[a] two month reduction in the approved period of confinement should moot any issue regarding the post–trial processing of this case.”  Without explanation, the CA did not adopt the SJA recommendation and approved the sentence as adjudged.

I was happy to read that the defense aggressively made demands for speedy post-trial processing.  The appellant got his two months credit.

We've discussed post-trial processing a number of times.  Here is a link to past posts.  I would have liked to see the Remsburg record show that trial defense counsel sought a post-trial Article 39(a), UCMJ, session, to ask for post-trial release.

Posted in:
Updated:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *