[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Hohman

I just listened to the Hohman argument.  I don't find it nearly as dire for the defense as advertised.  And even if the defense goes down in flames, it looks like it will be over the question of whether the appellant was prejudiced because there's nothing special about the defense counsel who was severed by EAS.  Of course, in our interlocutory case, prejudice shouldn't matter and there ARE reasons why that accused is special -- in particular the site visit that can't be replicated given geopolitical realities in Anbar Province.

I also really, really think that some of the questions -- particularly from Judge Ryan -- were asked with Wuterich in mind and seemed sympathetic to our position (but maybe I'm reading too much into that).

Babu, have you had a chance to listen to it?  If so, your thoughts?

Semper Fi,
DHS

Dwight H. Sullivan
Senior Appellate Defense Counsel
Air Force Appellate Defense Division
(AFLOA/JAJA)
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 1100
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
240-612-4773
DSN:  612-4773
Fax:  240-612-5818  


-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA 
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:47 PM
To: 'Puckett Neal'; 'Faraj Haytham'; 'Babu Kaza'
Subject: Hohman

I'm informed that today's oral argument in Hohman went very badly for the defense.  I haven't listened to it yet, but there seems to be a high probability that this case will make bad law for us on the Vokey issue.  The opinion will probably be out no sooner than the end of June.  This suggests that if we have to go the writ route again, we may not have a friendly reception at CAAF.

 

Semper Fi,

DHS

 

Dwight H. Sullivan

Senior Appellate Defense Counsel

Air Force Appellate Defense Division

(AFLOA/JAJA)

1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 1100

Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762

240-612-4773

DSN:  612-4773

Fax:  240-612-5818