42:I[185,["/_next/static/chunks/0sxns9k8ywops.js","/_next/static/chunks/11fk-1ie3w6mp.js","/_next/static/chunks/1uc4qdk4uj22c.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jvahffpql9nd.js","/_next/static/chunks/0agcep-t686m_.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_mrasy1s2owt.js","/_next/static/chunks/1nsk8jrr9fqe6.js"],"SendEmailButton"] 44:I[63625,["/_next/static/chunks/0sxns9k8ywops.js","/_next/static/chunks/11fk-1ie3w6mp.js","/_next/static/chunks/1uc4qdk4uj22c.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jvahffpql9nd.js","/_next/static/chunks/0agcep-t686m_.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_mrasy1s2owt.js","/_next/static/chunks/1nsk8jrr9fqe6.js"],"AddToLibraryButton"] 45:I[29721,["/_next/static/chunks/0sxns9k8ywops.js","/_next/static/chunks/11fk-1ie3w6mp.js","/_next/static/chunks/1uc4qdk4uj22c.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jvahffpql9nd.js","/_next/static/chunks/0agcep-t686m_.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_mrasy1s2owt.js","/_next/static/chunks/1nsk8jrr9fqe6.js"],"ShareButton"] 46:I[58016,["/_next/static/chunks/0sxns9k8ywops.js","/_next/static/chunks/11fk-1ie3w6mp.js","/_next/static/chunks/1uc4qdk4uj22c.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jvahffpql9nd.js","/_next/static/chunks/0agcep-t686m_.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_mrasy1s2owt.js","/_next/static/chunks/1nsk8jrr9fqe6.js"],"ProcessEpisodeButton"] 47:I[45269,["/_next/static/chunks/0sxns9k8ywops.js","/_next/static/chunks/11fk-1ie3w6mp.js","/_next/static/chunks/1uc4qdk4uj22c.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jvahffpql9nd.js","/_next/static/chunks/0agcep-t686m_.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_mrasy1s2owt.js","/_next/static/chunks/1nsk8jrr9fqe6.js"],"SignupCTA"] 3b:["$","span",null,{"aria-hidden":true,"children":"·"}] 3c:["$","span",null,{"children":"00:36:38"}] 43:T563,

This week, Sam and Trevor tackle two cases that foretell the risks of prioritizing expediency over process. First, after eight years, United States v. Jacinto, No. 24-0144, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 116 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 2, 2026), comes to end. This case went up and down on appeal due to a denied continuance and in camera review request concerning medical records disclosed on the “eve” of trial. While the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) found the denied continuance harmless, this case should be in any trial practitioner’s back pocket when seeking a continuance.

Second, the duo debate United States v. Kruse, No. 202500370, 2026 CCA LEXIS 13 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 21, 2026), a published Navy-Marine Corp Court of Criminal Appeals case that addresses how convening authorities can refer what looks like a covered offense after the Office of Special Trial Counsel defers prosecution…so long as it’s not labeled as “a covered offense.” Sam and Trevor’s spirited debate ends with a reminder about ensuring jurisdiction in each case and testing the bounds of Kruse.

Questions, comments, concerns? Send them our way at litigator.libations@gmail.com!