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

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

8/2/2023

 
NMCCA has denied a petition in In re K.J. because it is not ripe--something Appellate Government had agreed with. Note that by statute and regulation, a trial counsel has to consult with and get permission from Appellate Government before filing an Article 62 appeal. See also R.C.M. 908.

The trial debate relates to a Mil. R. Evid. 513. After litigating the issue, the final ruling of the MJ preceding the petition went as follows.
[A]pplying J.M. v. Payton-O’Brien, the military judge provided that Petitioner had to elect whether or not to waive her Mil. R. Evid. 513 privilege to permit in camera review of these records. The military judge then forecast several possibilities as to what could happen if Petitioner did, or did not, waive the privilege for this limited review, depending on what the military judge might find in the records if he were permitted an in camera inspection. Rather than make an election, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the military judge denied, explicitly finding that the diagnostic criteria for BPD were themselves not privileged. Again, the military judge gave Petitioner the option to waive the privilege for an in camera review, and a date by which to inform the court of her election: 3 April 2023. However, the Victim’s Legal Counsel [] requested a[n] 802[], informing the military judge that Petitioner would seek relief with this Court. As a result, the military judge suspended the date by which Petitioner was to make her election. Petitioner ultimately filed this Petition with the Court, and, so far as we are aware, has not yet made an election. 
​Why not ripe?
  • 1. "[W]e do not know whether the undisclosed diagnostic criteria at issue constitute privileged communications because we do not know what they are or how they were reached; therefore, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding that an in camera review was required. Nor do we know the result of that future review might be, or what eventualities might flow from it."
  • 2. "Petitioner has not demonstrated that the right to the issuance of this writ is clear and indisputable as to her second and fifth issues because those issues are not ripe. Nor can Petitioner demonstrate that issuance of the writ is appropriate as to her third and fourth issues, because Petitioner’s argument rests on the faulty premise – rejected by this Court in J.M. v. Payton O’Brien – that court-martial convictions resulting from the withholding of constitutionally required evidence from accused are somehow tolerable in the military justice system."
  • 3. "Finally, we decline to issue an advisory opinion as to Petitioner’s first issue, as to what standard of review would apply to a ripe petition for extraordinary relief filed under Article 6b, UCMJ."
  • 4. "We reject Petitioner’s argument that the military judge lacked authority to request Petitioner waive the privilege for the limited purpose of the military judge reviewing in camera Petitioner’s mental health records.. . . We are confident that a military judge’s request that an alleged victim waive the privilege for the limited purpose of in camera review, does not dilute the privilege because “the victim always holds the key to the privilege and the victim’s rights will be protected by the military justice system to the greatest extent possible, even if that results in an abatement of the entire court-martial.”
  • 5. "There are at least three possibilities here: (1) Petitioner waives the privilege and permits an in camera review and the military judge finds evidence that is constitutionally required, in which case Petitioner has another election to make; (2) Petitioner waives the privilege and permits an in camera review and the military judge does not find any constitutionally required evidence; or (3) Petitioner does not waive the privilege and the military judge must therefore craft a remedy. In sum, this dispute has not crystalized sufficiently to permit appellate review at this point."
This decision raises a number of questions, which I have decided to take out of the post. Comments are, however, welcome.

​Cheers.

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