M.W. v. U.S., 83 M.J. 361

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Generally

1. an appellate court considers de novo the question of whether it has jurisdiction
2. like all federal courts, a military appellate court has an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Subject Matter

1. like all federal courts, a military appellate court has an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party

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

1. the CAAF considers de novo the question of whether it has jurisdiction
2. like all federal courts, the CAAF has an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party
3. in this case, Article 67, UCMJ, does not provide the CAAF with jurisdiction to review a petition filed by a victim of an offense; Article 67(a), UCMJ, grants the CAAF jurisdiction to review only three categories of cases, and this case does not fit into any of them; Article 67(a)(1), UCMJ, requires the CAAF to review all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a CCA, extends to death, but this case is not a capital case in which a sentence of death has been adjudged and affirmed; Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, requires the CAAF to review all cases reviewed by a CCA which the JAG orders sent to the CAAF, but in this case, the JAG did not order the case sent to the CAAF for review; Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ, provides the CAAF with jurisdiction in all cases reviewed by a CCA in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the CAAF has granted a review, but in this case, the victim, and not the accused, filed the petition; and no other provision in Article 67, UCMJ, grants jurisdiction to the CAAF
4. although Article 6b(e)(3), UCMJ, requires the CAAF to give priority to those cases in which it reviews a decision of a CCA upon a petition for a writ of mandamus authorized by Article 6b(e), UCMJ, for a victim of an offense, this provision does not either expressly or implicitly grant jurisdiction to the CAAF to review such a petition filed by the victim of an offense; an instruction about how to exercise jurisdiction is different from a provision granting it
5. the All Writs Act does not provide the CAAF with jurisdiction to grant a victim of charged offenses a writ of mandamus to challenge a military judge’s decision that the victim’s counsel could not communicate with the trial counsel over how the government might exercise challenges to some members; the All Writs Act is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, nor does it expand a court’s existing statutory jurisdiction; because Article 6b(e) is a unique grant of statutory authority that limits appellate jurisdiction to the CCA, a victim of an offense cannot use that article and the All Writs Act to artificially extend this Court’s existing statutory jurisdiction; as currently written, neither the language of Article 6b, UCMJ, nor any other statute, grants the CAAF the necessary jurisdictional authority to review a petition filed by a victim of an offense

Trial Stages: Writs and Interlocutory Appeals: All Writs Act

1. the All Writs Act does not provide the CAAF with jurisdiction to grant a victim of charged offenses a writ of mandamus to challenge a military judge’s decision that the victim’s counsel could not communicate with the trial counsel over how the government might exercise challenges to some members; the All Writs Act is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, nor does it expand a court’s existing statutory jurisdiction; because Article 6b(e) is a unique grant of statutory authority that limits appellate jurisdiction to the CCA, a victim of an offense cannot use that article and the All Writs Act to artificially extend this Court’s existing statutory jurisdiction; as currently written, neither the language of Article 6b, UCMJ, nor any other statute, grants the CAAF the necessary jurisdictional authority to review a petition filed by a victim of an offense

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

1. the CAAF considers de novo the question of whether it has jurisdiction
2. like all federal courts, the CAAF has an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party
3. in this case, Article 67, UCMJ, does not provide the CAAF with jurisdiction to review a petition filed by a victim of an offense; Article 67(a), UCMJ, grants the CAAF jurisdiction to review only three categories of cases, and this case does not fit into any of them; Article 67(a)(1), UCMJ, requires the CAAF to review all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a CCA, extends to death, but this case is not a capital case in which a sentence of death has been adjudged and affirmed; Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, requires the CAAF to review all cases reviewed by a CCA which the JAG orders sent to the CAAF, but in this case, the JAG did not order the case sent to the CAAF for review; Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ, provides the CAAF with jurisdiction in all cases reviewed by a CCA in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the CAAF has granted a review, but in this case, the victim, and not the accused, filed the petition; and no other provision in Article 67, UCMJ, grants jurisdiction to the CAAF
4. although Article 6b(e)(3), UCMJ, requires the CAAF to give priority to those cases in which it reviews a decision of a CCA upon a petition for a writ of mandamus authorized by Article 6b(e), UCMJ, for a victim of an offense, this provision does not either expressly or implicitly grant jurisdiction to the CAAF to review such a petition filed by the victim of an offense; an instruction about how to exercise jurisdiction is different from a provision granting it
5. the All Writs Act does not provide the CAAF with jurisdiction to grant a victim of charged offenses a writ of mandamus to challenge a military judge’s decision that the victim’s counsel could not communicate with the trial counsel over how the government might exercise challenges to some members; the All Writs Act is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, nor does it expand a court’s existing statutory jurisdiction; because Article 6b(e) is a unique grant of statutory authority that limits appellate jurisdiction to the CCA, a victim of an offense cannot use that article and the All Writs Act to artificially extend this Court’s existing statutory jurisdiction; as currently written, neither the language of Article 6b, UCMJ, nor any other statute, grants the CAAF the necessary jurisdictional authority to review a petition filed by a victim of an offense

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

1. an appellate court considers de novo the question of whether it has jurisdiction
2. like all federal courts, a military appellate court has an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party