u/AnimatorImpressive24

Three steps later I remembered I had a spare set of brimstone leather.

I was reading a thread in the lawyer talk sub about the DOJ announcing their intent to use JAG lawyers to prosecute civilian cases. My impression of the majority opinion is that JAG can perform that role competently. Responses (including some from JAG lawyers themselves) seemed to reasonably lay out these points:

• JAG lawyers start with the same education and pass the same bar exam as civilian lawyers.
• JAG lawyers already prosecute cases of alleged criminal conduct by civilians when that conduct happens on a military base.
• Military and civilian courts aren't entirely dissimilar in how they operate including having essentially the same Rules of Evidence.

So accepting that as true, and recalling the recent article from the Guardian about Oregon's public defender crisis, I'm interested to hear opinions from defense attorneys.

Is the DOJ's shortage of civilian prosecutors a self-inflicted injury?

Does it serve the cause of justice for them to tap military resources to shore up gaps on the side of prosecution when the side of defense has no comparable solution?

Will this result in trapping people in the limbo between when charges are filed and when trial can begin?

Could that be an intentional ploy to allow increased political weaponization of media narratives by increasing the volume of articles written about certain people or groups that start with "have been charged with" while delaying articles saying "have been acquitted of"?

Alternately, will it pump up the number of people who take pleas out of desperation to escape that limbo which will subsequently be touted in press releases as "wins" by an administration with a rapidly rising number of "losses" to deflect?

Is there concern that judges or juries might lend a bias of authority to these prosecutors if they are aware they are active military?