Further appellate review

Discussion of further appellate review for government appeals:

Appellate reviewIn United States v. Lopez de Victoria , 66 M.J. 67 (2008), the CAAF decided 3-2 that it had statutory authority to exercise jurisdiction over the courts of criminal appeals’ decisions in Article 62 cases despite the absence of an express grant of authority in Article 67 (a). Relying on the express language in Article 67 (a) that the CAAF has jurisdiction over “all cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals . . . ,” the majority reasoned that Congress intended uniformity in the application of the Code between the services. If “all cases” did not include government appeals, which are by their very nature interlocutory appeals, then the purpose of the statute would be defeated. The dissent reasoned that nothing in the plain language of Article 62, Article 67, or any other statute grants the CAAF the statutory authority to entertain an Article 62 appeal.