Cautious Skepticism About the Benefit of Adding More Formalities to the Manual for Courts-Martial Rule-Making Process: A Response to Captain Kevin J. Barry

Authors

Gregory E. Maggs, George Washington University Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2000

Status

Accepted

Abstract

In Modernizing the Manual for Courts-Martial Rule-Making Process: A Work in Progress, 165 Mil. L. Rev. 237 (2000), Captain Kevin J. Barry, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired), advances seven specific proposals for improving the methods by which the procedural and evidentiary rules for courts-martial are made. This article addresses Captain Barry-s proposals. On the whole, none of the proposals is radical or dangerous. Indeed, each is closely analogous to procedures in the federal civilian criminal justice system. In addition, no insurmountable legal obstacles would prevent their adoption. Yet, closer inspection suggests that, in light of all the progress that already has occurred in the methods for amending the rules none of the proposals would yield significant new benefits. At the same time, all but one or two of the proposals would impose at least some significant burdens or costs. For these reasons, at least at present, the Joint Service Committee, the Department of Defense, the President, and Congress should view Captain Barry-s recommendations with cautious skepticism.

GW Paper Series

GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 380; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 380

SSRN Link

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1033082

Recommended Citation

Gregory E. Maggs, Cautious Skepticism About the Benefit of Adding More Formalities to the Manual for Courts-Martial Rule-Making Process: A Response to Captain Kevin J. Barry, 166 Mil. L. Rev. 1 (2000).