In re B.M. v. U.S. and Bailey, 84 M.J. 314

Military Justice Personnel: Victim: Generally

1. under Article 6b(a), UCMJ, the victim of an alleged offense has a right to be treated with fairness and respect and a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; but these rights do not give the victim a judicially cognizable interest in the ultimate question of whether the government will or will not prosecute the accused; because the abatement order in this case that abated the proceedings was not a court-martial ruling that violated the rights of the victim afforded by Article 6b(a), UCMJ, the named victim therefore lacked standing to challenge the abatement order by an extraordinary writ before the CCA, and thus she lacked standing before the CAAF
2. in this case, the named victim's request to disqualify the military judge in her case is not ripe for decision in light of the fact that the military judge abated the proceedings
3. in this case, the named victim's request to have her medical records returned to a privileged and protected status is moot in light of the fact that the military judge sealed her records and any communications in the records that were privileged remain privileged

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Privileges › Psychotherapist-patient privileges

1. MRE 513(a) creates a privilege allowing a patient to refuse to disclose a confidential communication made between the patient and a psychotherapist if such communication was made for the purpose of facilitating diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental or emotional condition
2. while the privilege in MRE 513(a) protects certain communications between a patient and a psychotherapist, diagnoses and treatments contained within medical records are not themselves uniformly privileged under MRE 513
3. MRE 513(e) establishes a Procedure to Determine Admissibility of Patient Records or Communication that are or may be protected by the privilege established in MRE 513(a)

Trial Stages: Writs and Interlocutory Appeals: Article 62 Appeal

1. Article 62(a), UCMJ, authorizes the government to take an interlocutory appeal asking for the lifting of an abatement order; an abatement order is the functional equivalent of a ruling of the military judge which terminates the proceedings under Article 62(a), UCMJ, and such a ruling is a proper subject for appeal by the government under that statute

Trial Stages: Appeals: Generally

1. an advisory opinion is a ruling on a legal question which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before the court

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

1. the CAAF has jurisdiction to review questions certified by a Judge Advocate General, pursuant to Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ
2. the CAAF does not issue advisory opinions even if it has jurisdiction; an advisory opinion is a ruling on a legal question which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before the court
3. the CAAF does not answer questions that are not ripe for decision or that have become moot
4. as a prudential matter, the CAAF follows the principles of standing that apply to Article III courts; in accordance with these principles, the CAAF only addresses claims raised by parties who can show an injury in fact, causation, and redressability

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Standing

1. as a prudential matter, the CAAF follows the principles of standing that apply to Article III courts; in accordance with these principles, the CAAF only addresses claims raised by parties who can show an injury in fact, causation, and redressability
2. under Article 6b(a), UCMJ, the victim of an alleged offense has a right to be treated with fairness and respect and a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; but these rights do not give the victim a judicially cognizable interest in the ultimate question of whether the government will or will not prosecute the accused; because the abatement order in this case that abated the proceedings was not a court-martial ruling that violated the rights of the victim afforded by Article 6b(a), UCMJ, the named victim therefore lacked standing to challenge the abatement order by an extraordinary writ before the CCA, and she lacks standing before the CAAF

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Advisory Opinion

1. the CAAF does not issue advisory opinions even if it has jurisdiction; an advisory opinion is a ruling on a legal question which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before the court
2. an advisory opinion is a ruling on a legal question which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before the court
3. the CAAF does not answer questions that are not ripe for decision or that have become moot
4. in this case, the CAAF declined to answer the certified issue as to whether a constitutional exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege in MRE 513 exists because its decision did not turn on this issue, and it does not issue advisory opinions; here regardless of how it decided the MRE 513 issue, the CAAF could not provide any relief requested by the named victim where it already concluded on the basis of principles of standing, ripeness, and mootness, that it could not grant such relief