The Court remanded United States v. Cabrera to NMCCA for additional review based on claims that the military judge should have been recused and that trial and appellate defense counsel were IAC for not raising that at trial or before NMCCA.
The initial NMCCA opinion. In that opinion the only issues raised were a double jeopardy claim and a failure to state an offense claim. However, the interesting issues now are:
DID LTCOL KASPYRZK’S SUBSTANTIVE PARTICIPATION INAPPELLANT’S CASE WHILE SIMULTANEOUS LY ALLEGEDLYAPPLYING FOR EMPLOYMENT TO SERVE AS THE PROSECUTION’S EXPERT ADVISOR UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC’S CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS?
WERE THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSELINEFFECTIVE WHERE THEY FAILED TO FILE A MOTION TOCOMPEL THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE REQUESTEDDISCOVERY REGARDING LTCOL KASPYRZK’S ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND FAILED TO RAISE THE ISSUE ONAPPEAL?
It is not clear from the remand order if the military judge was applying for a position in the Navy’s version of TCAP, but that’s what it reads like. This is interesting in light of the Spath issue, and issue now raised in Bergdahl about post-service employment (and of course the Henry issue).