U.S. v. Quick, 74 M.J. 332

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. the CCAs have the legal authority to order sentence-only rehearings under Article 66(d), UCMJ
2. Subsection (d) of Article 66, UCMJ, addresses the scope of the CCA’s authority to order rehearings and provides that if a CCA sets aside the findings and sentence, it may, except where the setting aside is based on lack of sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings, order a rehearing; however, if it sets aside the findings and sentence and does not order a rehearing, it shall order that the charges be dismissed
3. with respect to the prior precedent that authorized the CCAs the legal authority to order sentence-only rehearings under Article 66(d), UCMJ, the process may be cumbersome, but is not unworkable; also, the prior precedent is not poorly reasoned, and there have been no intervening events; in fact, the power of the CCAs to order sentence-only rehearings has been recognized by both the executive and legislative branches of government; in addition, servicemembers have come to rely on the authority of CCAs to order sentence-only rehearings where it has been accepted procedure in the military justice system for over sixty years; finally, because the prior procedural precedent has provided a predictable and consistent appellate remedy for both litigants and lower courts to follow for years, changing precedent would run the risk of undermining public confidence; as such, the government has failed to establish sufficient justification to depart from the doctrine of stare decisis

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. when the CAAF considers a request to overrule a prior decision of the court, it analyzes the matter under the doctrine of stare decisis

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. when considering whether to overrule a precedent, an appellate court is guided by the doctrine of stare decisis; under this fundamental principle, adherence to precedent is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process; stare decisis is a principle of decision making, not a rule, and need not be applied when the precedent at issue is unworkable or badly reasoned; as a general matter, however, adhering to precedent is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be settled right
2. under the doctrine of stare decisis, a decision should not be overruled without examining intervening events, reasonable expectations of servicemembers, and the risk of undermining public confidence in the law
3. for purposes of an appellate court’s analysis under the doctrine of stare decisis, the court does not limit its review to whether the prior precedent was wrongly decided, but rather it examines whether the prior decision is unworkable or poorly reasoned, any intervening events, the reasonable expectations of servicemembers, and the risk of undermining public confidence in the law

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Stare Decisis

1. the doctrine of stare decisis is most compelling where courts undertake statutory construction
2. when considering whether to overrule a precedent, an appellate court is guided by the doctrine of stare decisis; under this fundamental principle, adherence to precedent is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process; stare decisis is a principle of decision making, not a rule, and need not be applied when the precedent at issue is unworkable or badly reasoned; as a general matter, however, adhering to precedent is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be settled right
3. under the doctrine of stare decisis, a decision should not be overruled without examining intervening events, reasonable expectations of servicemembers, and the risk of undermining public confidence in the law
4. for purposes of an appellate court’s analysis under the doctrine of stare decisis, the court does not limit its review to whether the prior precedent was wrongly decided, but rather it examines whether the prior decision is unworkable or poorly reasoned, any intervening events, the reasonable expectations of servicemembers, and the risk of undermining public confidence in the law
5. with respect to the prior precedent that authorized the CCAs the legal authority to order sentence-only rehearings under Article 66(d), UCMJ, the process may be cumbersome, but is not unworkable; also, the prior precedent is not poorly reasoned, and there have been no intervening events; in fact, the power of the CCAs to order sentence-only rehearings has been recognized by both the executive and legislative branches of government; in addition, servicemembers have come to rely on the authority of CCAs to order sentence-only rehearings where it has been accepted procedure in the military justice system for over sixty years; finally, because the prior procedural precedent has provided a predictable and consistent appellate remedy for both litigants and lower courts to follow for years, changing precedent would run the risk of undermining public confidence; as such, the government has failed to establish sufficient justification to depart from the doctrine of stare decisis