This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, December 6, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Rosario, No. 16-0424/MC (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the lower court erred in conducting its Article 66(C), UCMJ, review by finding as fact allegations that supported charges of which Sgt Rosario was acquitted to affirm the findings and sentence.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Commisso, 16-0555/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying the defense’s post-trial motion for a mistrial, thereby violating appellant’s right to have his case decided by a panel of fair and impartial members, because three panel members failed to disclose that they had prior knowledge of the case.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF to review member disclosures
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, December 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Boyce, No. 16-0546/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: The Chief of Staff of the Air Force advised the convening authority that, unless he retired, the Secretary of the Air Force would fire him. Was the convening authority’s subsequent referral of charges unlawfully influenced by the threat to his position and career?

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF specifies an issue involving Air Force Lieutenant General Franklin
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Dalmazzi, No. 16-0651/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue [specified by CAAF on November 21 (discussed here)] : Whether the issues granted for review are moot where the record reflects that: Martin T. Mitchell took an oath purporting to install him as a judge of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) on May 2, 2016; the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) issued an opinion in the underlying case with Judge Mitchell participating in his capacity as an AFCCA judge on May 12, 2016; and the President did not appoint Mitchell to the CMCR until May 25, 2016.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF to review whether an appellate military judge can sit on both a CCA and the CMCR
Blog post: CAAF grants oral argument to the Military Commissions Defense Organization as amicus in support of neither party in Dalmazzi
Blog post: Potential mootness in Dalmazzi
Appellant’s brief on specified issue
Appellee’s (Government) brief on specified issue

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on December 13, 2016.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website is inaccessible.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Bailey on Thursday, December 8, 2016, at 10 a.m.. The argument will occur in the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Courtroom at 254 Charles Morse St. SE, Washington Navy Yard, Bldg. 58, Washington, DC, 20374. The granted issues are:

I. A CRIMINAL STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE IF A PERSON CANNOT REASONABLY DISCERN WHETHER THE CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT IS CRIMINAL. HERE, SN BAILEY WAS CONVICTED OF ENGAGING IN A SEXUAL ACT WITH LH WHEN SHE WAS “INCAPABLE OF CONSENTING DUE TO IMPAIRMENT” IN VIOLATION OF ART. 120(B)(3) OF THE UCMJ. THE LAW DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT LEVEL OF IMPAIRMENT RENDERS A PERSON INCAPABLE OF CONSENTING. IS THE STATUTE VOID FOR VAGUENESS?

II. THE MILITARY JUDGE MUST GIVE ALL NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE PROPERLY REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES. HERE, THE MILITARY JUDGE REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS ON A LEGALLY CORRECT DEFINITION OF “INCAPABLE” AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENSE TO AVOID UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS. THIS WAS ERROR.

The Court directs the parties to address the following:

1. The effect on the issues, if any, of United States v. Pease, 75 M.J. 180 (C.A.A.F. 2016).

2. Whether the military judge, having denied the defense’s proposed instruction, should have given some other instruction on the subject.

3. Whether Pease affects the analysis of the sufficiency of evidence

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

CAAF will hear oral argument in the Air Force case of United States v. Boyce, No. 16-0546/AF (CAAFlog case page), on Wednesday, December 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. With an issue specified by the court, CAAF will determine whether the appellant’s court-martial was affected by unlawful command influence:

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force advised the convening authority that, unless he retired, the Secretary of the Air Force would fire him. Was the convening authority’s subsequent referral of charges unlawfully influenced by the threat to his position and career?

The convening authority at issue was Air Force Lieutenant General Craig Franklin, whose exercise of command discretion under Article 60(c) to set aside the sexual assault conviction of Air Force Lieutenant Colonel James Wilkerson in 2013 was our #5 Military Justice Story of 2013. After Lt Gen Franklin acted in the Wilkerson case, and after he ordered the pretrial dismissal of charges in another sexual assault case (that eventually went to trial and resulted in an acquittal), Lt Gen Franklin referred Airman Boyce’s case for trial by general court-martial.

There were multiple charges preferred against Boyce, and he was ultimately convicted of rape and battery of his wife. Numerous subordinates recommended that Lt Gen Franklin refer the charges to a general court-martial, including Boyce’s Squadron Commander, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority, the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority himself, and Lt Gen Franklin’s Staff Judge Advocate. Nevertheless, Airman Boyce’s defense asserted at trial, on appeal at the AFCCA, and now before CAAF that the referral decision was the product of unlawful influence.

Read more »

CAAF will hear oral argument in the Army case of United States v. Commisso, 16-0555/AR (CAAFlog case page), on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, after the oral argument in RosarioThe court will hear oral argument on the following issue:

Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying the defense’s post-trial motion for a mistrial, thereby violating appellant’s right to have his case decided by a panel of fair and impartial members, because three panel members failed to disclose that they had prior knowledge of the case.

Sergeant First Class (E-7) Commisso was convicted contrary to his pleas of not guilty, by a general court-martial composed of officer members, of abusive sexual contact, indecent viewing, indecent recording, indecent broadcasting, violating a lawful general regulation, obstructing justice, and making a false official statement, in violation of Articles 120, 120c, 92, 134, and 107, UCMJ. The members acquitted Commisso of three specifications of rape. Commisso was sentenced to confinement for one year, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Army CCA set aside the convictions of violating a lawful general regulation and making a false official statement, but otherwise affirmed the findings and the sentence without discussion of the issue before CAAF.

Three of the members of Comisso’s court-martial – Colonel Forsyth, Colonel Ackerman, and Lieutenant Colonel Arcari – attended Sexual Assault Review Board (SARB) meetings involving the case prior to the trial. These meetings were:

conducted with all brigade commanders and relevant staff. The meeting would begin by discussing sexual assault prevention and then move into case review. Commanders would take turns briefing the GCMCA on the status of the open cases in their respective subordinate units. Each individual case was depicted on a Power Point slide, consisting of a summary of the facts reported by the alleged victim, the ranks of the subject and alleged victim, and a summary of the services offered to the alleged victim. After case review, “the meeting would progress to more best practices from the unit’s themselves.”

App. Br. at 4 (citations to record omitted). During voir dire all of the members were asked numerous questions about their knowledge of the facts of the case:

the military judge asked the panel whether they knew “Marine Private First Class, [EW], named in the specifications.” (JA 34.) The military judge also asked whether anyone on the panel had prior knowledge of the facts or events alleged in the accused’s case. (JA 34.) Civilian defense counsel asked if any panel member was in a group that dealt with issues of sexual assault in the military, or whether they had ever been involved in the sexual assault response system. (JA 59-60.) Defense counsel also asked “[h]as anyone heard about any of the facts of this case whatsoever?” (JA 57.)

App. Br. at 6-7. Despite having attended numerous SARB meetings where Commisso’s case was discussed, Colonel Forsyth, Colonel Ackerman, and Lieutenant Colonel Arcari all responded in the negative to each of these questions. During the trial, however, they realized that they had been exposed to the case during the SARB meetings but they did not inform counsel or the military judge.

The defense discovered their attendance at the SARB meetings after trial and moved for a mistrial. But the military judge denied the motion concluding, in part, that:

“COL Forseyth [sic], COL Ackerman, and LTC Arcuri are clear they did not recall any specific information or facts from any SARB briefings that might pertain to [Appellant’s] case other than the involvement of an alleged female Marine active duty victim and a male Army NCO/E-7.”

Gov’t Br. at 11 (motification and annotation in original).

CAAF will now review the military judge’s conclusions and decision denying the defense request for a mistrial.

Read more »

blawg_100_2016I’m proud to announce that CAAFlog is on the 2016 ABA Journal Blawg 100 list of the best legal blogs.

This is our third year in a row on the list, and our fourth year overall. Prior years are the 2015 list, the 2014 list, and the 2008 list.

Thanks to all our readers.

CAAF will hear oral argument in the Marine Corps case of United States v. Rosario, No. 16-0424/MC (CAAFlog case page), on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. The court granted review of one issue that – similar to an issue in United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR (CAAFlog case page) – questions whether the CCA’s review of the conviction was predicated on conduct that was not the basis for the conviction:

Whether the lower court erred in conducting its Article 66(C), UCMJ, review by finding as fact allegations that supported charges of which Sgt Rosario was acquitted to affirm the findings and sentence.

Sergeant (E-5) Rosario was convicted contrary to his plea of not guilty, by a special court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation, of one specification of sexual harassment in violation of Article 92. Specifically, the charge alleged that he:

did, on divers occasions, at or near New River, North Carolina, between on or about 13 September 2013 and on or about 21 February 2014, violate a lawful general order, to wit: Marine Corps Order 1000.9a, dated 30 May 2006, by wrongfully sexually harassing Lance Corporal BA, U.S. Marine Corps.

Gov’t Br. at 2 (quoting record) (marks omitted). Rosario was also charged with three unlawful touchings of Lance Corporal (E-3) BA during this time period – “touching her cheek with his mouth” and “touching her ear with his tongue” and “touching her hand with his hand” – in violation of Articles 120 and 128, however he was acquitted of all of those offenses. The members sentenced Rosario to reduction to E-1 and a bad-conduct discharge.

The basis for the sexual harassment charge was, at least, a series of inappropriate comments that Rosario made to LCpl BA (his subordinate) during the charged time period. On appeal Rosario “argued that the evidence was factually and legally insufficient to sustain his sexual harassment conviction.” Gov’t Br. at 9. The NMCCA rejected this challenge, concluding that the physical touchings of which Rosario was acquitted were evidence “offered in support of two separately charged offenses” – the sexual harassment offense and the 120/128 offense –  and that under such circumstances “an acquittal on one may not be pleaded as res judicata of the other.” United States v. Rosario, No. 201500251, slip op. at 4 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2016) (link to slip op.) (marks and citation omitted).

CAAF then granted review to determine whether the CCA’s review was predicated on the actual factual basis for the conviction.

Read more »

The long awaited report of the conference committee considering the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 was just released. It is available here: https://rules.house.gov/conference-report/s-2943

The conference version of the NDAA includes a great many significant changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In particular, the legislation adopts many – but not all – of the changes proposed by the Military Justice Review Group.

Some significant notes:

• The conference version does not eliminate members sentencing in non-capital cases. Instead, § 5182 amends Article 25 to give the accused the option to elect sentencing by members (when trial was before members) after the findings are announced.

• § 5164 of the conference version amends Article 20 to state that “a summary court-martial is a non-criminal forum. A finding of guilty at a summary court-martial does not constitute a criminal conviction.”

• § 5205 modifies a staff judge advocate’s pretrial advice to require only a probable cause determination rather than the current conclusion that “the specification is warranted by the evidence.”

• § 5330 modifies Article 66 to require automatic review by the courts of criminal appeals only in cases that include death, dismissal, a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, or confinement for two years or more. In cases involving confinement for more than six months or more (but less than two years) an accused may petition for review.

Edited to add: • § 5330 also preserves the requirement that a CCA “may affirm only such findings of guilty, and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as the Court finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved.”

• § 5301 modifies Article 56 to allow the prosecution to appeal a sentence on the grounds that “(A) the sentence violates the law; or (B) the sentence is plainly unreasonable.”

• § 5301 modifies Article 56 requires a sentence adjudged by a military judge alone to be segmented (confinement and fine only) by offense. Where sentencing is by members, the court-martial will continue to adjudge a single sentence for all offenses.

In United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. Jun. 27, 2016) (CAAFlog case page), a unanimous CAAF held that charged offenses may not be used under Mil. R. Evid. 413 to prove an accused’s propensity to commit other charged offenses, and also that the standard instruction given to members regarding how to handle such propensity undermines the presumption of innocence.

In United States v. Hukill, No. 20140939 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 16, 2016) (discussed here), the Army CCA concluded that CAAF’s decision in Hills does not apply in judge-alone trials.

Last week CAAF granted review of the Army CCA’s decision in Hukill:

No. 17-0003/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA 20140939. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER, IN A COURT-MARTIAL TRIED BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE, THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO USE THE CHARGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT FOR MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 413 PURPOSES TO PROVE PROPENSITY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.

II. WHETHER JUDGE PAULETTE V. BURTON AND JUDGE LARSS G. CELTNIEKS, JUDGES ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER THEIR SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN THEIR NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.

Military law recognizes three types of re-trials: a rehearing, a new trial, and an other trial. See R.C.M. 810. A rehearing (on findings, sentence, or both) may be ordered when findings or sentence are set-aside, and is a continuation of the former proceedings; a new trial may be ordered when new evidence or a fraud on the court is discovered; an other trial can occur after the original proceedings are declared invalid due to lack of jurisdiction or failure to state an offense. Separate from these – perhaps – is the possibility of a totally separate court-martial involving new charges based on the same allegations after the original charges are dismissed.

These possibilities are at the heart of a case recently certified to CAAF by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force:

No. 17-0079/AF. United States, Appellant v. Patrick Carter, Appellee. CCA 38708. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue:

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA) ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE CONVENING AUTHORITY EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF AFCCA’S REMAND WHEN HE REFERRED APPELLANT’S CASE TO AN “OTHER” TRIAL UNDER R.C.M. 1107(e)(2) FOLLOWING AFCCA’S ORIGINAL REMAND DECISION

Read more »

In a Federal Register notice available here, the Joint Service Committee announces proposed modifications to the Manual for Courts-Martial for 2017 and solicits public comments. Comments are due by January 30, 2017.

Three of the proposed amendments are notable. Read more »

Before the holiday CAAF granted review of an Army case involving interpretation of Mil. R. Evid. 304(a)(2):

No. 17-0032/AR. U.S. v. Sean M. Ahern. CCA 20130822. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST USING AN ADMISSION BY SILENCE PROVIDED BY MIL. R. EVID. 304(a)(2) IS TRIGGERED ONLY “WHEN THE ACCUSED IS AWARE OF” AN INVESTIGATION CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE RULE.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

The Rule states:

Failure to deny an accusation of wrongdoing is not an admission of the truth of the accusation if at the time of the alleged failure the person was under investigation or was in confinement, arrest, or custody for the alleged wrongdoing.

I discussed the Army CCA’s decision in Ahern in this post, and noted that the CCA made a first-impression interpretation of the Rule to conclude that:

Mil. R. Evid. 304(a)(2) is triggered by an investigation when the accused is aware of the investigation. Whether an accused is aware of an investigation should be determined using the same objective test as is used in the Article 31(b) context. Jones, 73 M.J. at 362 [(CAAFlog case page)].

Slip op. at 11.

In the Air Force case of United States v. Dalmazzi, No. 16-0651/AF (CAAFlog case page), CAAF is considering whether a judge of the United States Court of Military Commission Review (appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate) may also serve as an appellate military judge on a court of criminal appeals. CAAF granted review of two issues in Dalmazzi:

I. Whether United States Court of Military Commission Review Judge, Martin T. Mitchell, is statutorily authorized to sit as one of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals judges on the panel that decided Appellant’s case.

II. Whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell’s service on both the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Military Commission Review violates the Appointments Clause given his status as a superior officer on the United States Court of Military Commission Review.

CAAF also granted review of Dalmazzi-type issues in 44 trailer cases. Additionally, CAAF accepted an amicus brief from the Military Commissions Defense Organization and granted the organization 10 minutes of oral argument time (discussed here).

But last week CAAF rescinded that grant of argument time to amicus because it found an issue that has the potential to render the claim in Dalmazzi moot:

No. 16-0651/AF. U.S. v. Nicole A. Dalmazzi. CCA 38808. On further consideration of the record of trial, as supplemented following the order of the Court dated October 28, 2016, it is ordered that the parties brief the following specified issue:

WHETHER THE ISSUES GRANTED FOR REVIEW ARE MOOT WHERE THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT: MARTIN T. MITCHELL TOOK AN OATH PURPORTING TO INSTALL HIM AS A JUDGE OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW (CMCR) ON MAY 2, 2016; THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA) ISSUED AN OPINION IN THE UNDERLYING CASE WITH JUDGE MITCHELL PARTICIPATING IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN AFCCA JUDGE ON MAY 12, 2016; AND THE PRESIDENT DID NOT APPOINT MITCHELL TO THE CMCR UNTIL MAY 25, 2016.

The parties will brief this issue contemporaneously, and file their briefs on or before December 1, 2016.  It is further ordered that the Court will hear oral argument only on the specified issue at the hearing scheduled for December 7, 2016, and that the order allotting amicus curiae 10 minutes to present oral argument is hereby rescinded.

While this new discovery may resolve the issue in Dalmazzi, the trailer cases (which involve other judges and later decisions) will remain.

This week at SCOTUS: Last week the Court requested a response to the cert. petition in Howell. The response is due on December 23, 2016. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on December 6, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on December 13, 2016.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Walters on Wednesday, November 30, 2016, at 1 p.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert petition in Howell was distributed for conference on December 2. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on December 6, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Carista, No. 20150243, on Tuesday, November 22, 2016, at 10 a.m., on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN HIS APPLICATION OF MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 412 BY ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SEXUAL CONDUCT OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Honea on Tuesday, November 21, 2016, at 10 a.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

Maybe the timing of these developments is just a coincidence, but from one news report (here) we learn that trial in the Bergdahl case will be delayed until May because:

Prosecutors filed a motion in October requesting a trial delay. They cited the pace at which they’re able to get approval to give the defense classified evidence as a main reason for the delay.

And from another news report (here) we learn that the defense is positively giddy because it sees the election of Donald Trump to the presidency as an uncurable error:

“We’re deadly serious about seeking a dismissal,” Eugene R. Fidell told The Fayetteville Observer on Wednesday. “There’s never been a presidential candidate who singled out a military member for this kind of abuse before. It’s never happened.”

Deadly serious is an unfortunate choice of words considering that the classified evidence addressed first report includes evidence of soldiers who were allegedly injured during search and rescue missions for Bergdahl:

Former Army Spc. Jonathan Morita also testified Monday, according to the AP, describing when an unexploded rocket-propelled grenade smashed into a rifle he was holding with the force of a hammer onto his hand.

“I looked at it, and I thought, ‘That’s going to hurt in the morning.’ I didn’t feel it. Too much adrenaline,” he testified, according to the AP report.

Defense attorneys have said it was the Taliban, not Bergdahl, who caused the injuries.

And then there’s this (from the second news report):

[Retired Army JAG and law professor Victor M.] Hansen said the bigger challenge for Bergdahl’s lawyers may be to overcome the intense pretrial publicity. Bergdahl was the subject of the second season of a popular podcast, “Serial,” that played tapes of an interview Bergdahl did with a filmmaker explaining he walked off his base to cause a crisis that would catch the attention of military brass.

Deep in the category of it’s never happened before is Bergdahl’s decision to talk with filmmaker Mark Boal for long enough to produce 25 hours of recorded conversations. Conversations that were shared with the Serial podcast (presumably with Bergdahl’s permission). Conversations that include some incredibly damaging statements, as discussed in our #8 Military Justice Story of 2015.

But Bergdahl has a Trump card.

Audio of today’s arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:

United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.

United States v. Haverty, No. 16-0423/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.