Articles Tagged with nimj

NIMJ was able to send Charlie Fowler to monitor todays Article 39(a), UCMJ, session.

1.  Trial is continued until 4 November 2010 from 13 October 2010.  Not sure of the reason.  It appears Mr. Jensen asked the judge to hold the case “in abeyance” pending resolution of an (untimely?) writ which has been filed with NMCCA.  According to Charlie the defense said the reason for the potentially untimely filing was “for reasons I can’t get into right now[.]”  Huuuuuuuum, this has resonance.  I think I’ll try this one in a couple of weeks.  (Note to DMLHS, this citation to authority has to be on the top ten this year.)

2.  Unsurprisingly to those familiar with military justice the judge ruled the orders to be legal.

Here are some interesting tidbits from the CAAF orientation session for new attorneys courtesy of

As for the rules changes, a big (and quite welcome, in my opinion) change is the new system in which nearly all CAAF pleadings are eligible for electronic filing. Be sure to redact privacy/sensitive information from such filings, as final briefs will be placed on CAAF’s webpage, starting this term.

Other changes make the already small needle’s eye to SCOTUS more microscopic for military appeals. While CAAF judges previously granted review of all appeals in which the appellant was serving 30 years or more in confinement, that is no longer the policy. Furthermore, for cases that come back to CAAF after a remand to the CCAs, CAAF will no longer automatically grant review of the case.

CAAF’s daily journal for 10 June 2010 indicates that CAAF has allowed NIMJ to file a brief on behalf of appellant (I abstained from participation in producing said brief), and allowed NACDL to file an amicus pleading but denied NACDL leave to file an “oversized brief.”

Contact Information