Source: http://www.caaflog.com/category/end-o-term-stats/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:20:23+00:00

Document:
CAAF heard oral argument in 36 cases in the 2017 term, resulting in 34 authored opinions of the court and 2 summary dispositions. The court also issued one per curiam decision without hearing oral argument (dismissing the writ-appeal petition in Gray). Summaries of each case, with links to CAAFlog case pages, are on the October 2017 Term page.
That number of oral arguments is about average for the court over the past decade. It’s a significant decrease from the 42 arguments heard last term, but a significant increase from the 28 arguments heard the term before.
CAAF also had a very moderate summary disposition docket. By my count the court issued summary dispositions in 32 cases – a number that is about average (and includes the two summary dispositions in argued cases: Gonzalez-Gomez and Burris).
Chief Judge Stucky wrote 9.
Judge Maggs joined the court in the middle of the term, allowing him to participate in only 11 of the 34 authored opinions. Senior Judges Effron, Cox, and Erdmann all participated in cases heard this term prior to Judge Maggs joining the court. None authored a lead opinion, but Senior Judge Effron authored a concurring opinion in 1 case (Robinson (AR)) and a dissenting opinion in 1 case (Eppes), and Senior Judge Cox authored a dissenting opinion in 1 case (Jacobsen).
I score the Government divisions as the winner in 21 of the 36 cases heard at oral argument. Those wins, however, include Bailey (where CAAF remanded for a new review of the sentence), Simpson (where CAAF answered the certified question in the negative but found other reasons to affirm the CCA’s decision in part), and Hennis (where CAAF heard oral argument on – and found it lacks authority to grant – a defense motion for resources).
Of the 34 authored opinions of the term, 22 were unanimous (no separate opinions). The Government divisions prevailed in 14 (64%) of those 22 unanimous opinions.
An additional 3 cases involved only separate concurring opinions, for a total of 25 authored opinions with no dissents (74% of the total of 34 authored opinions). The Government divisions prevailed in 16 (64%) of those 25.
Chief Judge Stucky dissented 3 times and wrote 3 dissenting opinions.
Judge Ryan dissented 2 times and wrote 1 dissenting opinion.
Judge Ohlson dissented 3 times and wrote 3 dissenting opinions.
Judge Sparks dissented 1 time but did not write separately.
Senior Judge Effron dissented 1 time and wrote 1 dissenting opinion.
Senior Judge Cox dissented 1 time and wrote 1 dissenting opinion.
6 cases drew just 1 dissenting vote (Jacobsen, Harpole, Robinson (AF), Eppes, Barker, and Hardy), and 3 cases drew 2 dissenting votes (Short, Jerkins, and Barry). The dissenting opinion in Barry, however, is a little unusual. Authored by Judge Ryan and joined by Judge Maggs, the opinion is styled as a dissent but agrees with the majority that the conviction must be reversed. Accordingly, it gets special attention in the remainder of these stats.
Chief Judge Stucky dissented 3 times, siding with the Government division in 2 of the 3.
Judge Ryan dissented 2 times, siding with the defense in both.
Judge Ohlson dissented 3 times, siding with the Government division in 2 of the 3.
Judge Sparks dissented 1 time, siding with the Government division.
Senior Judge Effron dissented 1 time, siding with the Government division.
Senior Judge Cox dissented 1 time, siding with the defense.
Judge Sparks wrote for the court in 6 cases, drawing 1 dissent (and 1 concurring opinion).
Judge Maggs wrote for the court in 3 cases, drawing 1 dissent (and 2 concurring opinions).
Judge Ryan wrote for the court in 7 cases, drawing 2 dissents.
Chief Judge Stucky wrote for the court in 9 cases, drawing 3 dissents.
If there’s an award for the most dissents, Chief Judge Stucky wins it for the second year in a row. But two years ago (in the 2015 Term) then-Judge Stucky dissented the most but was the least likely to draw dissents when he wrote for the court.
Chief Judge Stucky wrote a total of 13 opinions this term: 9 opinions of the court, 1 concurring opinion, and 3 dissenting opinions. He was with the majority in 31 out of 34 cases with authored opinions (91%). Chief Judge Stucky voted for the Government division in 21 (62%) of those 34 cases, and dissented in 2 of the Government divisions’ 21 victories. 1 of those dissents, however, was in Barker, where Judge Stucky agreed that the Government division should win but he dissented because he would find the issue waived (he also dissented in Harpole, where the defense won).
Judge Ryan wrote a total of 9 opinions this term: 7 opinions of the court, 1 concurring opinion, and 1 dissenting opinion. She was with the majority in 33 (97%) out of 34 cases with authored opinions (including Barry, even though she dissented, because of the relief she would have granted). Judge Ryan voted for the Government division in 22 (65%) of those 34 cases, and dissented in none of the Government divisions’ 21 victories (her only dissent was in Jerkins, where she disagreed with the relief the court granted to the defense).
Judge Ohlson wrote a total of 13 opinions this term: 9 opinions of the court, 1 concurring opinion, and 3 dissenting opinions. He was with the majority in 31 (91%) out of 34 cases with authored opinions. Judge Ohlson voted for the Government division in 20 (59%) of those 34 cases, and dissented in 2 of the Government divisions’ 21 victories (Hardy and Short) (he also dissented from the defense victory in Jerkins).
Judge Sparks wrote a total of 6 opinions this term: 6 opinions of the court, 0 concurring opinions, and 0 dissenting opinions. He was with the majority in 32 (97%) out of 33 cases with authored opinions (he recused himself from Barry). Judge Sparks voted for the Government division in 20 (61%) of those 33 cases, dissenting in 1 of the Government divisions’ 21 victories (Short).
Judge Maggs participated in only 11 of the 34 cases with authored opinions. He wrote a total of 4 opinions this term: 3 opinions of the court, 1 concurring opinion, and 0 dissenting opinions. He was with the majority in all 11 cases (including Barry, even though he joined Judge Ryan’s dissenting opinion, because of the relief he would have granted). Judge Maggs voted for the Government division in 7 (64%) of those 11 cases, dissenting from none of the Government divisions’ victories in which he participated.
Civilian defense counsel argued 11 of the 36 cases (31%) argued at CAAF this term: (Guardado, Riesbeck, Honea, Mangahas, Jerkins, Condon, Carpenter, Eppes, Kelly, Hardy, and Burris). That includes Mr. Mizer’s argument in Honea, even though Mr. Mizer argued the case in his official capacity as a civilian employee of the Air Force Defense Appellate Division.
Of those 11 arguments by civilian counsel, the defense won in 7 (64%).
In cases argued by military appellate defense counsel, the defense won in 8 out of 25 (32%).
On the Government division side one civilian attorney argued and won one case (Bailey).
1 was a Navy Corps case (Barry).
1 was a Coast Guard case (Harpole).
Coast Guard Appellate Defense: 1 out of 2 (50%).
Army Appellate Defense: 4 out of 12 (33%).
Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense: 1 out of 3 (33%).
Air Force Appellate Defense: 2 out of 8 (25%).
CAAF heard oral argument in 3 cases with issues certified by a Judge Advocate General: Jacobsen, Katso, and Simpson. Of those 3 cases, 2 were from the Army and 1 was from the Air Force.
The Government division won two out of the three.
CAAF also issued summary dispositions in two cases with certified issues: Gould (Army) and Hale (Marine Corps). In both cases CAAF rejected the certified issues.
CAAF specified issues for oral argument in 3 cases: Condon, Robinson (AR), and Riesbeck. The specified issues were dispositive in all three cases.
14 (39%) were from the Air Force CCA.
16 (44%) were from the Army CCA.
3 (8%) were from the Coast Guard CCA.
3 (8%) were from the Navy-Marine Corps CCA.
One of those 36 arguments, however, was the motion in Hennis that didn’t involve direct review of a CCA’s decision.
The Air Force CCA was reversed in 5 out of 14 cases (36%).
The Army CCA was reversed in 8 out of 15 cases (53%) (includes a partial reversal in Simpson).
The Coast Guard CCA was reversed in 3 out of 3 cases (100%) (includes partial reversals in Harpole and Bailey).
The Navy-Marine Corps CCA was reversed in 1 out of 3 cases (33%).
5 were from the Air Force CCA (3 Hills trailers and 1 Commisso trailer).
5 were from the Army CCA (3 Hills trailers and 1 Burris trailer).
1 was from the Navy-Marine Corps CCA (Tinsley).
Note: I scored the following summary dispositions as reversing a CCA: Tinsley, Robertson, Rice, Campbell, Frank, Brown, Thompson, Moynihan, Hoffmann, Marcum, and Hughes. Perhaps the list could be longer. One case not on my list is McGinn, where CAAF reversed the Army CCA’s finding of waiver but otherwise affirmed the CCA’s decision. Another case not on my list is Preston, where CAAF reversed an Air Force CCA ruling on a motion for reconsideration filed in connection with a petition for a new trial. I had to draw the line somewhere.
CAAF considered 18 petitions for extraordinary relief during the 2017 term. All were denied in one form or another.
Two of the 18 are particularly noteworthy: Gray and Roberts.
The government agrees with petitioner that, under this Court’s decision in United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009), the military courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain such requests for coram nobis relief and that the CAAF erred in concluding othe[r]wise.
Br. at 12. SCOTUS denied the petition but the SG’s concession (probably) keeps Denedo alive.
* Although styled as a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, this is a request for a new trial in which the statutory period for filing such claims has expired.
CAAF’s decision affirmed the similar action of the Army CCA (analyzed here).
CAAF begins the 2018 term with 19 cases on its docket. Those include one capital appeal (Hennis) that was docketed last year and in which CAAF’s review is mandatory. It also includes one case remanded by the Supreme Court (Briggs), and two certified cases (Cooper and Perkins).
The court already heard oral argument in two cases in the 2018 term: Eugene and Criswell. The arguments were heard before the official start of the term as part of CAAF’s Project Outreach.
Other notable cases include CAAF’s grant of review (with no briefing ordered) in a Navy case (Greening) that involves successive prosecutions and the separate sovereigns doctrine. The Supreme Court is reconsidering the doctrine in Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646 (link to docket page). The doctrine is also at issue in Hennis.
CAAF also granted review in another Navy case (Forbes) where the appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault by causing bodily harm for failing to inform his sexual partners of his HIV-positive status. That case might cause CAAF to reconsider its ultimate holding in United States v. Gutierrez, 74 M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (CAAFlog case page) (the #7 Military Justice Story of 2015).
And the long running court-martial prosecution of Marine Sergeant Hutchins, for his participation in a 2006 kidnap-murder conspiracy in Iraq, will be reviewed by CAAF for a third time.
Also returning to CAAF is Tucker, which questions whether negligence is a sufficient mens rea for a violation of Article 134.
CAAF heard oral argument in 6 cases with issues certified by one of the Judge Advocates General (Muwwakkil, Quick, Katso, Piolunek, Morita, and Buford). The court resolved another 3 certified cases by summary disposition (Huey, Soto, and Bowser). In total the court acted in 9 cases with certified issues this term.
Of those 9 cases, 7 (78%) were from the Air Force. That’s a slight decrease from last term’s 82%, but still gives me reason to recall my post about the appearance of bias in the certification of cases by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. The other two certified cases this term were from the Army (Muwwakkil) and the Marines (Quick).
The Government won in 4 of the 9 certifications (44%): Katso, Piolunek, Buford, and Huey (resolved summarily as a Piolunek trailer that mooted the certified issue). Notably, Piolunek involved a cross-certification; the JAG certified an issue after CAAF granted review of the CCA’s decision. The certified issue in Piolunek was also summarily rejected by CAAF as presenting a question of fact that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider.
The court specified issues for oral argument in two cases (Gilbreath and Arness), a Marine Corps case and an Air Force case. The specified issues were dispositive in both cases.
13 were from the Air Force CCA.
15 were from the Army CCA.
8 were from the Navy-Marine Corps CCA.
The Air Force CCA was reversed in 8 out of 13 cases (62%).
The Army CCA was reversed in 6 out of 16 cases (38%).
The Navy-Marine Corps CCA was reversed in 4 out of 8 cases (50%).
Civilian defense counsel argued 6 of the 37 cases (16%) argued at CAAF this term: Gutierrez, Morita, Newton, Piolunek, Plant, and Sullivan. Of these, the Government won in 3 (50%).
In cases argued by military defense counsel, the Government won in 17 out of 31 (55%).
2 were Air Force cases (Jones and Morita Nettles).
7 were Army cases (Adams, Bennitt, Blouin, Keefauver, Muwwakkil, Peters, and Stellato).
3 were Marine Corps cases (Gilbreath, Quick, and Vargas).
2 were Navy cases (Simmermacher and Woods).
Air Force Appellate Defense: 2 out of 9 (22%).
Army Appellate Defense: 7 out of 14 (50%).
Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense: 5 out of 8 (63%).
Coast Guard Appellate Defense: N/A (only Coast Guard case argued by a civilian).
Chief Judge Baker wrote a total of 16 opinions this term: 8 opinions of the court, 3 concurring opinions, and 5 dissenting opinions. He was with the majority in 30 out of 37 cases (81%). He voted for the Government in 23 out of 37 cases (62%), dissenting from 2 of the Government’s 20 victories and concurring in 2 of them.
Judge Stucky wrote a total of 16 opinions this term: 7 opinions of the court, 5 concurring opinions, and 4 dissenting opinions. He was with the majority in 32 out of 37 cases (86%). He voted for the Government in 19 out of 37 cases (51%), dissenting from 3 of the Government’s 20 victories and concurring in 2 of them.
Judge Erdmann wrote a total of 11 opinions this term: 7 opinions of the court, 2 concurring opinions, and 2 dissenting opinions. He was with the majority in 32 out of 37 cases (86%). He voted for the Government in 15 out of 37 cases (41%), dissenting from 5 of the Government’s 20 victories and concurring in 2 of them.
Judge Ryan wrote a total of 10 opinions this term: 7 opinions of the court, 1 concurring opinion, and 2 dissenting opinions. She was with the majority in 33 out of 37 cases (89%). She voted for the Government in 24 out of 37 cases (65%), dissenting from none of the Government’s 20 victories and concurring in 1 of them.
Judge Ohlson wrote a total of 10 opinions: 8 opinions of the court and 2 dissenting opinions. He was in the majority in 33 out of 36 cases (92%). He voted for the Government in 18 out of 36 cases (50%), dissenting from 2 of the Government’s 20 victories. Of note, he recused himself from one case (that the Government won).
Senior Judge Cox participated in 1 case this term, siding with the Government in CAAF’s unanimous decision in Newton.
Of the 37 authored opinions of the term, 14 were unanimous (no separate opinions). The Government prevailed in 7 of these 14. An additional 9 cases involved only separate concurring opinions, for a total of 23 cases with no dissents (62% of the total of 37 cases). Of these 23 cases with no dissents, the Government prevailed in 13 (57%).
Chief Judge Baker dissented 7 times and wrote 5 dissenting opinions.
Judge Erdmann dissented 5 times and wrote 2 dissenting opinions.
Judge Stucky dissented 5 times and wrote 4 dissenting opinions.
Judge Ryan dissented 4 times and wrote 2 dissenting opinion.
Judge Ohlson dissented 3 times and wrote 2 dissenting opinions.
Chief Judge Baker sided with the Government in 5 out of 7 dissents (71%).
Judge Stucky sided with the Government in 4 out of 5 dissents (80%).
Judge Ryan sided with the Government in 4 out of 4 dissents (100%).
Judge Ohlson sided with the Government in 2 out of 3 dissents (67%).
* Corrected. I originally wrote this backwards; that Judge Erdmann sided with the Government in all of his dissents.
Senior Judge Cox participated in one case (Newton), which was decided in a unanimous decision.
Of the 14 cases with dissents, only 4 cases involved lone dissenters. Of these 4 cases, Chief Judge Baker was the lone dissenter in 2 (Vargas and Bannitt), siding with the Government in both. Judge Erdmann was the lone dissenter in 1 (Sullivan), siding with the Defense. Judge Ohlson was the lone dissenter in 1 (Katso), siding with the Defense.
Chief Judge Baker wrote for the court in 8 cases, of which only 1 (13%) had dissenters. That was Judges Stucky and Ryan (both writing separately) in Peters.
Judge Stucky wrote for the court in 7 cases, of which 1 (14%) had dissenters. Judge Ohlson dissented in McFadden, joined by Chief Judge Baker.
Judge Ryan wrote for the court in 7 cases, of which 2 (29%) had dissenters. Chief Judge Baker dissented in one case (Bennitt) and Judge Ohlson dissented in the other (Katso).
Judge Erdmann wrote for the court in 7 cases, of which 4 (57%) had dissenters. Judge Stucky joined by Judge Ohlson dissented in 1 case (Quick), and Chief Judge Baker dissented in the other 3 cases (Blouin, Adams, and Vargas) joined by Judge Ryan in 2 (Blouin and Adams).
Judge Ohlson wrote for the court in 8 cases, of which 6 (75%) had dissenters. Judge Erdmann dissented in 5 cases (Akbar, Buford, Schloff, Torres, and Sullivan), Judge Stucky dissented in 3 cases (Buford, Schloff, and Torres), Chief Judge Baker dissented in 2 cases (Akbar and Plant), and Judge Ryan dissented in 1 case (Plant).
Interestingly, just like last year, while Chief Judge Baker dissented more than any other judge (7 in total – authoring separate opinions in 5), he was least likely to draw dissents when he wrote for the court.
CAAF heard oral argument in 37 cases this term and issued 37 authored opinions of the court. Summaries of each case, with links to CAAFlog case pages, are available on the September 2014 Term page.
The court also issued summary dispositions in 46 cases, including 6 cases involving the appointment of Mr. Lawrence Soybel to the Air Force CCA (see United States v. Janssen, 73 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 15, 2014) (CAAFlog case page)), and 7 cases involving the brief revival of the ultimate offense doctrine at the Army CCA (see United States v. Phillips, 74 M.J. 20 (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2015) (CAAFlog case page)).
Chief Judge Baker wrote 8.
Notably, Chief Judge Baker’s appointment to CAAF expired on July 31 and Judge Erdmann is now the Chief Judge of CAAF. However, for these stats, I will identify them as Chief Judge Baker and Judge Erdmann.
Readers may recall that in the 2013 term CAAF did not hear oral argument or issue an authored opinion in any Navy cases.
The court had a less active extraordinary writ docket in the 2014 term than in the 2013 term (when it considered 23 petitions). In the 2014 term the court considered 19 petitions (12 writ-appeals, 4 habeas petitions, 1 petition for mandamus, 1 petition for relief pendente lite, and 1 petition filed under the All Writs Act and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). It denied all of them.
Calling winners and losers can be tough, but I’m calling 20 (54%) of the term’s authored opinions as wins for the Government. Those 19 cases are: Phillips, Piren, Castillo, Newton, McFadden, Buford, Piolunek, Olson, Norman, Torres, Castillo, Carter, Ward, Katso, McIntosh, Murphy, Schloff, Arness, Akbar, and Sullivan.
CAAF oral argument schedule for the September 2014 term originally included one more oral argument day, on June 9, 2015. However, Chief Judge Baker made a comment at the end of Tuesday’s oral arguments that implied that the court would not hear any more cases this term, and the court’s website no longer shows a June 9 date.
CAAF heard oral argument in 4 cases with issues certified by one of the Judge Advocates General under the authority granted in Article 67(a)(2) (Finch, Hines, McPherson, and Wilson). But that only tells part of the story, as the court resolved another 7 certified cases by summary disposition (Arriaga, Burns, Lindgren, McDowell, McIntyre, Seton, and Sickels). In total the court decided 11 cases with certified issues this term.
Of those 11 cases, 9 (82%) were from the Air Force. That’s in part due to the Air Force certification binge earlier this spring that prompted me to write about the appearance of bias in the certification of cases by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. The other two cases were from the Army.
The Government won in only 2 out of the 11 certifications (18%): Hines (an Army case where the court unanimously sided with the Government) and Finch (an Air Force case where the court was sharply divided). Both of those cases were heard at oral argument. Notably, Finch involved a cross-certification; the JAG certified an issue after CAAF granted review of the CCA’s decision.
The court specified issues for oral argument in two cases (Moon and Moss), both from the Army. The specified issues were dispositive in both cases.
15 were from the Air Force CCA.
14 were from the Army CCA.
The Air Force CCA was reversed in 6 out of 15 cases (40%).
The Army CCA was reversed in 6 out of 14 cases (43%).
Civilian counsel argued only 4 out of the 32 cases (12.5%) argued at CAAF this term (down from 6 out of 36 last year – 17%): Leahr, MacDonald, Merritt, and Winckelmann. Of these, the Government won in 2 (50%).
In cases argued by military defense counsel, the Government won 17 out of 28 (61%).
7 were Air Force cases (Elespuru, Janssen, Knapp, McPherson, Paul, Wicks, and Wilson).
4 were Army cases (Davenport, Flesher, Moon, and Warner).
Air Force Appellate Defense: 7 out of 15 (47%).
Army Appellate Defense: 4 out of 14 (29%).
Coast Guard Appellate Defense: 0 out of 1 (0%).
Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense: 0 out of 2 (0%).
Last year’s numbers are here.
Unlike the voting blocs post of years past, this year I’m going to consider each judge individually.
Chief Judge Baker wrote a total of 20 opinions this term: 7 opinions of the court, 4 concurring opinions, and 9 dissenting opinions. He was in the majority in 22 out of 32 cases (69%), concurring in 4 cases. He voted for the Government in 23 out of 32 cases (72%), dissenting from 3 of the Government’s 19 (16%) victories and concurring in 2 of them.
Judge Erdmann wrote a total of 5 opinions this term, all of them opinions of the court. He was in the majority in 30 out of 32 cases (94%), joining the opinion of the court in all of them. He voted for the Government in 17 out of 32 cases (53%), dissenting from 2 of the Government’s 19 victories (10.5%) (his only 2 dissents).
Judge Stucky wrote a total of 14 opinions this term: 9 opinions of the court, 3 concurring opinions, and 2 dissenting opinions. He was in the majority in 30 out of 32 cases (94%), concurring in 3 of them. He voted for the Government in 17 out of 32 cases (53%), dissenting from 2 of the Government’s 19 victories (10.5%) (his only 2 dissents) and concurring in 2 of them.
Judge Ryan wrote a total of 11 opinions this term: 7 opinions of the court, 1 concurring opinion, and 3 dissenting opinions. She was in the majority in 28 out of 32 cases (87.5%), concurring in 1 of them. She voted for the Government in 19 out of 32 cases (59%), dissenting from 2 of the Government’s 19 victories (10.5%) and concurring in 1 of them.
Judge Ohlson joined the court a few months into the term, and he participated in only 23 of the court’s 32 cases with authored opinions. Judge Ohlson wrote a total of 7 opinions: 4 opinions of the court and 3 dissenting opinions. He was in the majority in 20 out of 23 cases (87%), concurring in one of them. He voted for the Government in 12 out of 23 cases (52%). But Judge Ohlson participated in only 13 of the Government’s 19 victories, dissenting from 2 (15% of the 13) and concurring in 1.
Senior Judge Effron participated in 8 of the court’s 32 cases with authored opinions this term (25%). He wrote 1 dissenting opinion. He was in the majority in 6 out of 8 cases (75%), concurring in none. He voted for the Government in 4 out of 8 cases (50%), and dissented from 2 Government victories.
Senior Judge Cox participated in 1 case this term, voting for the Defense and joining Chief Judge Baker’s opinion of the court in Wicks.
Of the 32 authored opinions of the term, 12 were unanimous (no separate opinions). The Government prevailed in 9 of these 12. An additional 6 cases involved only separate concurring opinions, for a total of 18 cases with no dissents (56% of the total of 32 cases). Of these 18 cases, the Government prevailed in 12 (66%).
Chief Judge Baker dissented 10 times and wrote 9 dissenting opinions.
Judge Ryan dissented 4 times and wrote 3 dissenting opinions.
Judge Ohlson dissented 3 times and wrote dissenting opinions in all 3 cases.
Judge Stucky dissented 2 times and wrote dissenting opinions in both cases.
Senior Judge Effron dissented 2 times and wrote a dissenting opinion in 1 case.
Judge Erdmann dissented 2 times but wrote dissenting separate opinions.
Chief Judge Baker sided with the Government in 7 out of 10 dissents (70%).
Judge Ryan sided with the Government in 2 out of 4 dissents (50%).
Judge Ohlson sided with the Government in 1 out of 3 dissents (33%).
Judge Stucky sided with the Government in neither of his 2 dissents (0%).
Senior Judge Effron sided with the Government in neither of his 2 dissents (0%).
Judge Erdmann sided with the Government in neither of his 2 dissents (0%).
These numbers count the dissents by Judges Stucky and Ryan in Treat as siding with the Defense.
Of the 14 cases with dissents, only 5 cases involved lone dissenters. Of these 5 cases, Chief Judge Baker was the lone dissenter in 4 (Warner, Wilson, McPherson, and Davenport), siding with the Government in each case. Judge Ohlson was the lone dissenter in 1 (Frey), siding with the Defense. No other judge was a lone dissenter.
Chief Judge Baker wrote for the court in 7 cases, of which only 1 (14%) had a dissenter. That was Judge Ohlson in Frey.
Judge Ryan wrote for the court in 7 cases, of which 2 (29%) had dissenters. Chief Judge Baker dissented in both of these cases and wrote separately in both. Judge Ohlson dissentedt in 1, joining the Chief Judge’s opinion.
Judge Erdmann wrote for the court in 5 cases, of which 2 (40%) had dissenters. Senior Judge Effron dissented in both cases, writing 1 separate opinion. Chief Judge Baker dissented in 1 case and wrote a separate opinion. Judge Ryan also dissented in 1 case and wrote separately.
Judge Ohlson wrote for the court in 4 cases, of which 2 (50%) had dissenters. Judge Ryan dissented in both cases, writing separately in both. Chief Judge Baker and Judge Stucky each dissented in 1 case, and each wrote a separate opinion.
Judge Stucky wrote for the court in 9 cases, of which 7 (78%) had dissenters. Chief Judge Baker dissented in all 7, writing a separate opinion in 6. Judge Ohlson dissented in 2, writing separate opinions in both. Judges Erdmann and Ryan each dissented in 1, but neither wrote separately.
Looking at last year’s dissent stats, I note that last year Chief Judge Baker was tied with Judge Stucky for most number of dissents (7 each) and Chief Judge Baker was the most likely to draw dissents when he wrote for the court (5 out of 8 – 62.5%). But this year, while Chief Judge Baker dissented more than any other judge (10 in total – authoring separate opinions in 9), he was least likely to draw dissents when he wrote for the court.
CAAF heard oral argument in 32 cases this term and issued 32 authored opinions of the court.
The court also issued summary dispositions in 67 cases, including 11 cases involving the comments of Marine Corps military judge Lieutenant Colonel Palmer (discussed here) and 16 cases involving the appointment of Mr. Lawrence Soybel to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (see United States v. Janssen, 73 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 15, 2014) (CAAFlog case page)).
Chief Judge Baker wrote 7.
Judge Ohlson joined the court mid-term (discussed here), and Senior Judges Effron and Cox both participated in cases argued before Judge Ohlson’s confirmation. Senior Judge Effron participated in 8 cases and Senior Judge Cox participated in 1 case. Neither Senior Judge authored a majority opinion, however Senior Judge Effron did author a dissenting opinion (in Finch).
CAAF did issue summary dispositions in 3 Navy cases, deciding all 3 in favor of the Government. Of these 3 summary dispositions, 2 involved administrative issues (correcting the promulgating order in one case (York) and sealing an exhibit in the other (Mora)), and the third (Short) involved a question of the completeness of the record.
The court had a fairly active extraordinary writ docket, with 23 petitions (19 writ-appeals, 2 habeas petitions, and 2 petitions for mandamus). CAAF denied all of these petitions except for one: United States v. Arness, No. No. 14-8014/AF (an Air Force case in which it ordered that briefs be filed (discussed here)).
Calling winners and losers can be tough, but I’m calling 19 (59%) of the term’s authored opinions as wins for the Government. Those 19 cases are: Cimball Sharpton, Danylo, Davis, Finch, Frey, Gutierrez, Hines, Hornback, Jones, Kearns, Leahr, Lee, Mead, Moss, Passut, Payne, Talkington, Treat, and Winckelmann.
Note: These calculations include Judges Ryan and Stucky as siding with the Defense in Treat (CAAFlog case page), and Chief Judge Baker and Senior Judge Effron as siding with the Defense in Moss (CAAFlog case page). That said, Treat could be read as a unanimous win for the Government (as all five judges would have affirmed the conviction), and Moss could be read as a loss for both sides (as even the dissenters didn’t indicate how they would have decided the granted issues).
Compared to last year’s overview, the Government won a greater percentage of cases decided in authored opinions this year (59%) than last year (50%) (last year’s number excludes the 3 ex writ cases). If keeping a case away from CAAF is considered a win for the Government (a fair characterization I think), then the Navy had a perfect record and retained its position as the service that won the most (last year the Navy won 4 out of 5 cases – 80%). In contrast, the Air Force went from the second greatest percentage of wins last year (5 out of 8 – 62.5%) to the service that won the least this year (7 out of 15 – 47%).
CAAF has heard oral argument in 21 cases so far this term (23 if we include Davis and Paul, both argued on March 4) and issued 10 authored opinions (in chronological order): Mead, Merritt, Warner, Winckelmann, Payne, Passut, Knapp, Moss, Wicks, and Hines.
Of these 10, the court’s decision was with the Government in 5, against the Government in 4, and against both in 1 (Moss, where the court dismissed the appeal over the argument of both parties). Only 1 was a certified case (Hines), resulting in a unanimous win for the Government. 3 of the 10 decisions drew dissents (Warner, Knapp, and Moss), all authored by Chief Judge Baker. He was alone in Warner, joined by Senior Judge Effron in Moss, and joined by Judge Ryan in Knapp. But an equal 3 cases were decided unanimously (meaning without any separate opinion).
Speaking of Senior Judge Effron, he participated in 7 of the authored decisions (Mead, Merritt, Warner, Winckelmann, Payne, Passut, and Moss) as well as the oral argument in Finch (decision still pending), while Senior Judge Cox participated in just 1 case (Wicks), before Judge Ohlson’s confirmation in October.
CAAF also issued 36 summary dispositions so far this term, of which 11 involved the comments of a Marine Corps military judge and 15 involved the appointment of Mr. Soybel to the AFCCA (see Janssen). Of the other 10 summary dispositions, 3 were in certified cases (Arriaga and Lindgren from the Air Force, and Sickels from the Army) and all 3 were decided against the Government. Chief Judge Baker dissented from 2 of those decisions (Arriaga and Lindgren) and also from the granted case of McKim-Burwell.
Finally, I’m tracking 34 active cases on the court’s master docket. This number includes 8 Janssen trailers, 2 other apparent trailers (no briefs ordered in Moon and Winn), and the mandatory review of the capital sentence in Akbar (to be argued next term). Of the remaining 23 cases, 13 have already been argued, and 10 remain to be argued. There are 6 scheduled oral argument days remaining in the term (including a project outreach argument on April 9).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.