United States v. Haney

The majority concludes that because of “new matter” in the staff judge advocate (SJA)’s second addendum, “there is an independent basis for requiring a new convening authority’s action in this case.” 45 MJ 447, 451. I agree with the majority that “the SJA erred by failing to serve on substitute defense counsel the second addendum, which addressed the issue of sleeping members.” Id. at 452. The majority asserts: “This error is compounded by the convening authority’s acting on appellant’s case even before the substitute counsel had reviewed the record of the post-trial proceedings.” Id. at 452.…