Randolph v. HV and United States, 76 M.J. 27

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Generally

1. every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself of its own jurisdiction even though the parties are prepared to concede it
2. the burden to establish jurisdiction rests with the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction, and in making this determination, a federal court reads the statutes governing its jurisdiction as an integrated whole, with the purpose of carrying out the intent of Congress in enacting them

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. the CAAF lacks jurisdiction under Article 6b, UCMJ, to review a decision of the CCA that granted an alleged rape victim extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the military judge to protect certain portions of the victim’s mental health records from disclosure to the accused for use in his defense on the grounds that the records were subject to the psychotherapist-patient privilege under MRE 513; Article 6b expressly provides that enumerated victims’ rights can be enforced through a writ of mandamus obtained at a CCA, but there is no mention of additional appellate rights for the accused, or of a grant of jurisdiction to the CAAF; the victim protections afforded by Article 6b expressly provide for enforcement by the CCA, and nothing further; it makes no sense to allow the accused to utilize Article 6b, a victim’s statute, to go where the victim may not
2. the legislative history of Article 6b indicates no congressional intent to provide for review at the CAAF or beyond; Article 6b(e) is a clear and unambiguous grant of limited jurisdiction to the CCAs to consider petitions by alleged victims for mandamus as set out therein; as Article 6b is meant to confer rights on victims, not the accused, it would violate congressional intent for the CAAF to review Article 6b cases upon petition by the accused but not the victim
3. although under the All Writs Act, the CAAF has authority to act in aid of its existing jurisdiction when the harm alleged has the potential to directly affect the findings and sentence, because Article 6b(e) is a unique grant of statutory authority that limits appellate jurisdiction to the CCA, the CAAF cannot use that article and the All Writs Act to artificially extend its existing statutory jurisdiction
4. Article 6b(e) is a limited grant of CCA review to enforce certain enumerated victims’ rights; the statute cannot be stretched by an accused, even in tandem with Article 67(a)(3) or the All Writs Act, to authorize review by the CAAF

Trial Stages: Writs and Interlocutory Appeals: All Writs Act

1. the All Writs Act is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, nor does it expand a court’s existing statutory jurisdiction
2. under the All Writs Act, CAAF has authority to act in aid of its existing jurisdiction when the harm alleged has the potential to directly affect the findings and sentence

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

1. jurisdiction is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo
2. the burden to establish jurisdiction rests with the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction, and in making this determination, a federal court reads the statutes governing its jurisdiction as an integrated whole, with the purpose of carrying out the intent of Congress in enacting them