National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

CAAFlog

D.J. Releases Opinion in Bergdahl Federal Court Case

7/25/2023

 
bergdahl_decision.pdf
File Size: 453 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
7/25/2023 15:02:15

Part II of the decision pertaining to the Recusal issue, is actually quite restrained.

Scott
7/25/2023 18:20:15

Wow, so where does the case go from here?

Brenner Fissell
7/25/2023 19:02:29

"Consequently, the judgment of the military judge regarding the plaintiff’s court-martial is rendered void."

I think this means the conviction itself.

Greg
7/26/2023 10:38:07

If the MJ’s judgment was vacated, and that judgment was a sentence including that Bergdahl be discharged from the Army, what effect if any does that have on the fact of Bergdahl’s discharge itself?

Scott
7/26/2023 11:58:54

And the guilty plea. Does it have to be renegotiated? A new decision on preferral/referral?

Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
7/26/2023 12:09:40

I would say the Government would have to start over from scratch with a new preferral. The problem is jeopardy attached and terminated once the military appeals ended.

Allan
7/27/2023 10:33:50

My guess is that, absent an appeal, the case reverts to the status it was in the day that the conflict of interest began. . . October 16, 2017. It seems as though Bergdahl's DD will be rescinded, and he will get back pay and benefits. I have no idea whether the Army will retry the case. My guess would be that it will.

William Cassara
7/27/2023 10:45:24

He only gets back pay and benefits if he is retried and acquitted, or if he is not retried.

Brenner Fissell
7/27/2023 16:35:50

Bill--is that a statutory rule?

Scott
7/27/2023 18:58:56

Right, if he is re-tried and re-convicted he would not get backpack and benefits.

Publius
7/27/2023 10:02:36

Interesting opinion.

No UCI violation. Judge Walton sealed that off, choosing to ignore the fact that proved dispositive on the recusal issue. Careful, and I suppose well done. Finding a UCI violation in this one just might have been the final nail in the American military justice system's coffin.

Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
7/27/2023 21:13:50

@Brenner, it's in the DOD Financial Management Regulation.

William Cassara
7/28/2023 10:11:32

It's a Finance Regulations. See, U.S. v. Dock, a Court of Claims case from 20 or so years ago.


Comments are closed.
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Co-editors:
    Phil Cave
    Brenner Fissell
    Links

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal
    -2025 Ops
    ​
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    JRAP
    JRTP


    UCMJ

    Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.)
    ​
    ​
    MCM 2024
    ​
    MCM 2023

    MCM 2019
    MCM 2016
    MCM 2012
    MCM 1995

    ​
    UMCJ History

    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    J. App. Prac. & Pro.

    Dockets

    Air Force

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Army

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Coast Guard

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    ​"Records."

    Navy-Marine Corps

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    "Records."

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly