JAG CENTRALThe world's first weblog devoted to military justice and military law issues.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
YESTERDAY'S CAAF OPINIONS
Yesterday (3 AUG 05), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces released two opinions: U.S. v. Arnold, No. 04-0524, and U.S. v. Dooley, No. 05-6002. Arnold involves a fact-specific inquiry of whether the testimony corroberating the accused's confession was secured independently of the confession, as required by Military Rule of Evidence 304(g). CAAF unanimously affirmed the conviction.
Dooley involves review of the trial judge's decision to dismiss the defendant's child pornography retrial with prejudice because it violated the 120-day speedy trial provision of Rule for Court Martial 707. According to RCM 707, anytime on retrial that arraignment does not occur within 120 days of the convening authority receiving the record of trial back from the reversing appeals court, the trial court must dismiss. (Note: RCM 707 is based on the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162, and military courts often borrow from that law's legislative history when interpreting RCM 707). When determining whether the dismissal should be with prejudice (meaning the government can never try that charge again), the court weighs four factors: 1) the seriousness of the offense, 2) the facts leading to dismissal, and 3) the effect of dismissal with prejudice on the administration of justice, and 4) prejudice to the accused by retrial. The court of appeals reviews the trial court's decision on prejudice for abuse of discretion. The Navy-Marine Court of Criminal Appeals found that the trial judge abused his discretion. CAAF, in a fact-intense analysis, found that CAAF erred by failing to properly apply the abuse of discretion. It found that the military judge did not abuse his discretion, and affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the charge with prejudice. The decision was unanimous.
Categories: CAAF, Appellate
Dooley involves review of the trial judge's decision to dismiss the defendant's child pornography retrial with prejudice because it violated the 120-day speedy trial provision of Rule for Court Martial 707. According to RCM 707, anytime on retrial that arraignment does not occur within 120 days of the convening authority receiving the record of trial back from the reversing appeals court, the trial court must dismiss. (Note: RCM 707 is based on the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162, and military courts often borrow from that law's legislative history when interpreting RCM 707). When determining whether the dismissal should be with prejudice (meaning the government can never try that charge again), the court weighs four factors: 1) the seriousness of the offense, 2) the facts leading to dismissal, and 3) the effect of dismissal with prejudice on the administration of justice, and 4) prejudice to the accused by retrial. The court of appeals reviews the trial court's decision on prejudice for abuse of discretion. The Navy-Marine Court of Criminal Appeals found that the trial judge abused his discretion. CAAF, in a fact-intense analysis, found that CAAF erred by failing to properly apply the abuse of discretion. It found that the military judge did not abuse his discretion, and affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the charge with prejudice. The decision was unanimous.
Categories: CAAF, Appellate
