United States v. Mickla

Senior Judge BLOMMERS

(concurring):

I believe the present state of our law in the speedy trial arena as set forth in Senior Judge Kastl’s opinion requires the result which we reach in this case.1 That is not to say I agree with where the law stands. Cf. United States v. Raichle, 28 M.J. 876, 880 (A.F.C.M.R.1989) (Judge Blommers concurring).

My brothers seem to be saying that dismissal of the charges was an improper action on the convening authority’s part under the circumstances present in this case. I disagree. There are several reasons why charges might be dismissed, with a determination that…