What if the accused submitted matters but there is no addendum?

What if the accused submitted matters but there is no addendum?

What if the accused submitted matters but there is no addendum?

  1. ucmjlawfirm528United States v. Godreau , 31 M.J. 809 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990). Two conditions for apresumption of post-trial regularity:
    1. There must be a statement in the SJAR informing the CA that he must consider the accused’s submissions.
    2. There must be some means of determining that the CA in fact considered all post-trial materials submitted by the accused. Ideal: (1) list all attachments; (2) have the CA initials and dates all submissions in a “clearly indicated location.”
  2. If United States v. Foy , 30 M.J. 664 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990), requirements are not met, orif no addendum and the two Godreau conditions are not met, the government must submit an affidavit from the CA. See United States v. Joseph , 36 M.J. 846 (A.C.M.R. 1993).
  3. “The best way to avoid a Craig [28 M.J. 321 (C.M.A. 1989)] problem is to preparean addendum using the guidance in Foy and Pelletier to ensure compliance with Craig and UCMJ, Article 60(c). If this method is used, there will be no need to have the convening authority initial submissions or prepare an affidavit.” Godreau , 31 M.J. at 812.
  4. United States v. Buller , 46 M.J. 467 (C.A.A.F. 1997). “[L]itigation can be avoidedthrough the relatively simple process of serving the addendum on the accused in all cases, regardless whether it contains ‘new matter’.” Id . at 469 n.4.
  5. United States v. Briscoe , 56 M.J. 903 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2002). Failure of SJA toprepare addendum to PTR advising CA to consider all matters (i.e., written matters) submitted by accused cured through post-trial affidavit from CA and SJA swearing that all clemency matters were considered by CA prior to action.