[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wuterich denial of stay request and request for continuance
Let's Roll!
Neal A. Puckett
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
703.706.9566
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 29, 2010, at 13:10, "Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA"<Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil> wrote:
> Got it -- thanks! We'll file a writ appeal. I can work on it over the weekend. The question is whether we want to file it soon or wait on the off chance that CAAF will issue its opinion in Hutchins. I think the odds of a Hutchins ruling in the next 20 days are sufficiently small that we should go ahead and file early next week.
>
> That said -- CAAF, of course, knows how it's going to rule in Hutchins while we don't. If CAAF's Hutchins ruling is going to make the law worse for the defense on continuity of counsel issues than it is today, presumably it won't take CAAF long to deny the writ appeal. If, on the other hand, CAAF's Hutchins ruling will make the law better, then it might hold the writ appeal pending Hutchins and then remand the case for further consideration in light of Hutchins.
>
> All NMCCA's ruling seems to say is that this case isn't appropriate for extraordinary relief. I think we can hit back on that point pretty hard at CAAF, since it's granted writ appeals on several occasions post=Clinton v. Goldsmith on right to counsel issues.
>
> Semper Fi,
> DHS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neal P&F [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:56 PM
> To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; CODE 45 Sripinyo Kirk Major NAMARA
> Subject: Fwd: Wuterich denial of stay request and request for continuance
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> From: "Jones LtCol David M" <david.m.jones5@usmc.mil>
> Date: October 29, 2010 12:06:04 EDT
> To: "Neal Puckett" <neal@puckettfaraj.com>
> Cc: "Gannon Maj Nicholas L" <nicholas.gannon@usmc.mil>, "Faraj Haytham" <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>, "Marshall Maj Meridith L" <meridith.marshall@usmc.mil>
> Subject: RE: Wuterich denial of stay request and request for continuance
>
>
>
> Mr. Puckett,
>
> Here is the ruling. I fail to see that there is another ruling you are waiting for. What am I missing? This is dated 29 October. Waiting for the 802 conference.
>
> R,
>
> LtCol David M. Jones
> Military Judge
> Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
> Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
> Office: 645-7287 / 2156
> Fax: 645-2035
> From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neal Puckett [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 0:32
> To: Jones LtCol David M
> Cc: Gannon Maj Nicholas L; Faraj Haytham; Marshall Maj Meridith L
> Subject: Re: Wuterich denial of stay request and request for continuance
>
> It's a little confusing. The original stay request was denied but the one we were talking about last night is still pending. That's the writ you got yesterday. Still might get a stay order today or Monday and still set for 39a in Tues morning and still ready for trial on 24 Jan 2011.
> V/r,
>
> Neal A. Puckett
> LtCol, USMC (Ret)
> Puckett & Faraj, PC
> 703.706.9566
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:28, "Jones LtCol David M" <david.m.jones5@usmc.mil> wrote:
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
>
>
> I understand that the stay was denied. I would now like to know why we can't do this case on Tuesday? I want an immediate 802 conference. I am at my office right now. Major Gannon, why can't we do this case as planned?
>
>
>
>
>
> R,
>
>
>
>
>
> LtCol David M. Jones
>
>
> Military Judge
>
>
> Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
>
>
> Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
>
>
> Office: 645-7287 / 2156
>
>
> Fax: 645-2035
>
>
> From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
>
>
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:21
>
>
> To: Jones LtCol David M
>
>
> Cc: Gannon Maj Nicholas L; Faraj Haytham; Marshall Maj Meridith L
>
>
> Subject: Wuterich denial of stay request and request for continuance
>
>
>
>
>
> Your Honor,
>
>
> Was handed this attachment late this afternoon. Col Dwight Sullivan reads this as this in two ways. Since you issued your ruling so quickly after our petition was submitted in anticipation of having to wait for a ruling until 2 Nov, the Court is telling us that now that you have the order, we invite you to submit your petition for relief (Ex Writ) from the military judge's denial of the motion for appropriate relief. The original petition for a stay was to allow us enough time to file our petition for extraordinary relief. He believes that the other thing they're telling us is that IF we still want to submit it (now that we have your ruling), they plan to take it up and issue a stay if one is requested, since it will take a bit of time. The usual language when denying such a petition is to tell the petitioner that he is free to raise the issue in the normal course of an appeal, or words to that effect. This language is unique, in his experience. We will have the petition filed by COB tomorrow. We expect that NMCCA will issue a stay either on Friday or on Monday. But in either case, I believe that both the government and the defense would prefer some degree of certainty for planning purposes. For that reason, the defense respectfully requests a continuance until NMCCA has a chance to rule on the petition for extraordinary relief which will be filed tomorrow, and which will request a stay of the proceedings (which NMCCA did not foreclose in the attached order).
>
>
> Bottom line is that smarter folks than me (read: Dwight Sullivan), say it is inevitable that the court will grant our second (and now ripe) request for a stay AND will grant our petition to consider your ruling.
>
>
> Will be on the phone in 10 min for better, perhaps more coherent explanation.
>
>
>
>
>
> V/r,
>
>
> Neal A. Puckett, Esq
>
>
> LtCol, USMC (Ret)
>
>
> Puckett & Faraj, PC
>
>
> 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
>
>
> Alexandria, VA 22314
>
>
> 703-706-9566
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.
>
>
> <Wuterich Writ 2.doc>
>
>