Just curious

I’m getting ready to retry Savala.  So I’m actually more than curious than usual about cases that have been retried, remanded, or . . .

In the process I remembered United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004).  Actually, I remembered the quirky issue, it was DMLHS who reminded me the exact case Smile

CAAF remanded after deciding this issue:

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT’S VERBATIM REPLICATION OF SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S ARGUMENT AS THE COURT’S OPINION CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.

Jenkins was used to support remand in several other NMCCA cases.  So curious again about what happened:

First both sides asked for reconsideration at CAAF, which was denied.  Appellant:  United States v. Jenkins, 64 M.J. 222 (C.A.A.F. 2006).  Appellee:  United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 310 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

The NMCCA issued a new opinion, and granted more reliefUnited States v. Jenkins, 62 M.J. 582 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. 2005).

Obviously this case is of limited value in our daily business.  But don’t you sometimes want to know “what happened to so-and-so,” after we move on from the immediate ‘case’ in front of us.  No, OK.  But in the process I came across a couple of items useful in a current case. 

Oh, BTW.  Check out:

Jenkins v. Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals,  Civil Action No.: 08-00572009, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19752 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2009).  Note, he filed pro se.

This is not the first time NMCCA has been challenged as a court in litigation.  Some of you will remember Carlucci?

United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review v. Carlucci, 26 M.J. 328 (C.M.A. 1988).  Oh, and I wonder if Mitchell qualifies?  That would be United States v. Mitchell, 39 M.J. 131, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 874  (1994).

Posted in:
Updated:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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