U.S. v. Ortiz, 76 M.J. 189

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. the appointment to the US Court of Military Commissions Review (USCMCR) of an officer who had previously been detailed to serve as an appellate military judge on the CCA did not terminate his military commission and did not effect his ability to serve on the CCA; the applicable statute, 10 USC § 973(b) (2012), which limits an officer’s ability to accept or exercise the functions of a civil office, may impact upon whether the officer could hold office at the USCMCR, but it does not by its terms terminate the officer’s position as an appellate military judge on the CCA, and in any event, the statute saves the officer’s actions in appellant’s case
2. given a military officer’s status as a principal officer of the US Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR), that officer’s simultaneous service on USCMCR and the CCA did not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution; an officer’s status as a principal officer on the USCMCR does not carry over to the CCA and invest him with authority or status not held by ordinary CCA judges; when that officer sits as a CCA judge, he is no different from any other CCA judge under Article 66

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

1. an appellate court decides questions of statutory construction de novo

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

1. under the plain meaning method of statutory interpretation, if a statute is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the words will control, so long as that meaning does not lead to an absurd result