Armed Forces Appeals Court to Hear Arguments
|
| Nita Farahany '04 speaks before the Court |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces heard oral arguments in a real case at Duke Law on Feb. 25, with two Law students, Randall Cook ’04 and Nita Farahany ’04, appearing as amici.
The Court, made up of five civilians despite the fact that its cases arise from the military, heard arguments in United States v. O’Connor at Duke Law as part of an outreach program to inform the public about its work. Following oral argument, the visiting judges answered audience questions about the general operation of the Court and military justice. Two of the five visiting judges, Andrew S. Effron and Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann, remained at the Law School on Wednesday to help teach a military law course.
|
| Randall Cook '04 |
Apart from the case, three well-known members of the legal profession from North Carolina, including James Coleman, senior associate dean for academic affairs and professor of the practice of law, were admitted to the bar for the Court. The others admitted were Alfred P. Carlton of Raleigh, president of American Bar Association, and Federal Magistrate Judge H. Brent McKnight of Charlotte.
The case concerned Senior Airman Barry O’Connor, who pleaded guilty in 1999 to wrongfully and knowingly receiving and distributing child pornography and wrongfully and knowingly possessing computer disks and tapes containing child pornography, among other charges. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, ruled that O’Connor had pleaded guilty based on questionable definitions of child pornography and that the government had not proven that the images were of actual children rather than computer-generated pictures.
|
| From right: James Coleman, senior associate dean and professor of the practice of law, served as supervising attorney for Farahany, center, and Cook, left. Behind them is Robinson Everett, a former chief judge of the Court |
Thus the case was sent back to the Court of Appeals, which is expected make a ruling in several months, said William DeCicco, clerk of the court. If O’Connor’s side prevails in the case, a new hearing could be held on the pornography charges, and his sentence could be reduced. However, unrelated charges O’Connor faces would be unaffected by those proceedings.
The Duke Law students, who were given five minutes each before the Court, took two directions with their comments. On the one hand, they agreed with O’Connor’s defense that he did not know, and the government did not show, that the images he possessed were of actual children. But they also contended that the Court could convict him for other offenses of conduct that would be inconsistent with the good order and discipline of the armed forces.
They were helped in preparing by Coleman, who acted as their supervising attorney. Also helping were Professor of Law Robinson Everett and Senior Lecturing Fellow Walter Cox – each of whom has served as chief judge of the Court – and Professor Scott Silliman, executive director of the Law School’s Center for Law, Ethics & National Security. Silliman had a 25-year career in military justice, serving in various leadership positions before retiring as a U.S. Air Force Colonel and coming to Duke Law.
|
| The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces heard arguments in a real case at Duke Law as part of an outreach program. |
Despite some initial nervousness, the students quickly were able to make their positions clear. “It was an honor to appear before the Court to present our arguments, and it was truly enjoyable to engage in conversation and answer questions presented by the judges, Farahany said. “It is an exciting prospect that we could potentially influence the outcome of this case. I was particularly pleased that the judges, in their questions posed to the government and to the appellant, cited some of the cases in our brief, and it was clear that they had read and scrutinized our argument and that they had taken our arguments into consideration.”
Added Cook: “Nita and I were both thrilled with how the arguments turned out. The time was short, but I am confident we managed to credibly assert our position. The judges were engaging and seemed very attuned to our arguments. We have high hopes that we'll have some influence over the Court's ultimate ruling.”
