MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS: Judicial Review:
Standing
2008 (September Term)
United
States v. Wuterich, 67 M.J. 32 (the
jurisdictional concept of standing
normally concerns the limitation of the judicial power of the United
States to
cases and controversies under Article III, Section 2 of the US
Constitution;
the CAAF, which was established under Article I of the Constitution,
has
applied the principles from the cases and controversies limitation as a
prudential matter).
(the evidentiary concept of
standing in
criminal cases concerns the issue of whether a defendant has a
sufficient
interest in the object of a search, a claim of privilege, or other
evidentiary
matter to prevail on the merits of the objection; these cases involve
the
criteria used to assess the merits of a criminal defendant’s
evidentiary
claims, not the right of a defendant to participate as a litigant in
the
assessment of those claims).
(appellant had standing to
file a motion to
dismiss the government’s interlocutory appeal of the military judge’s
evidentiary ruling to quash a subpoena issued to a television network
that
sought production of the unaired footage of a videotaped interview of
appellant
regarding his alleged offenses, where appellant had a direct interest
in the
scope of any ruling at trial or on appeal regarding the evidence that
would be
available for consideration at his trial).
2006
United
States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (appellant has standing on direct review
to
challenge the composition of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on
the
grounds that the assignment of a judge to his appellate panel, who was
a United
States Senator and also a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Standby
Reserve,
violated the Incompatibility Clause of the Constitution which prohibits
Members
of Congress from holding any office under the United States).
(one who makes a challenge to
the
constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who
adjudicates his
case is entitled to a decision on the merits of the question and
whatever
relief may be appropriate if a violation indeed occurred; the
constitutionality
of the assignment of a person to serve as a judge on a Court of
Criminal
Appeals is not an abstract question; the fact that a Member of Congress
sat as
a judge in this criminal case relates to the rights and liberties of a
specific
individual, appellant; the direct liberty implications for appellant
make this
case distinct from other abstract circumstances where the
Incompatibility
Clause might be implicated; appellant is entitled to a decision as to
the
constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who
adjudicated his
case).
2005
United
States v. Disney, 62 M.J. 46 (appellant
has
standing to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 842
(h) on Commerce Clause grounds where he
was charged under
Article 134, Clause 3 for a crime and offense not capital; the MCM
provides
that if conduct is charged as a violation of Article 134, Clause 3, the
proof
must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the
applicable law; section 842(h) contains a statutory jurisdictional
element that
invokes Congress’s Commerce Clause authority (Article I, Section 8,
Clause 3)
to regulate interstate commerce; were an appellate court to conclude
that
element is unconstitutional as applied to appellant’s conduct, the
statute
would no longer constitute a crime or offense of which he could be
found
guilty; thus, the language of the specified offense itself requires
that an
appellate court address appellant’s claim).