The new five-judge CAAF will make its debut on Monday morning at 0900 when it hears oral argument in United States v. Taylor, No. 06-0319/MC.

CAAF will hear a total of five oral arguments this week, three in naval cases (all Marine Corps) and two in Air Force cases. The Army will have to wait until 17 January to be grilled by the new judges.

Here are the issues in the five cases to be heard this week.

MONDAY:

No. 06-0319/MC. U.S. v. Jason L. TAYLOR. CCA 200202366.

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT ASSERT THE HUSBAND-WIFE PRIVILEGE OVER CONFIDENTIAL MARITAL COMMUNICATIONS BECAUSE ADULTERY IS A CRIME AGAINST THE SPOUSE FOR PURPOSES OF M.R.E. 504(c)(2)(A).

No. 06-0403/MC. U.S. v. Damien B. SHAW. CCA 200300312.

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO INQUIRE INTO THE EFFECT THAT APPELLANT’S MEDICAL PROBLEMS HAD ON HIS ABILITY TO APPRECIATE THE NATURE AND QUALITY OR THE WRONGFULNESS OF HIS ACTS.

TUESDAY:

No. 06-0615/AF. U.S. v. Patrick M. LEONARD, Jr. CCA 35740.

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN CALCULATING THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT AND, IF SO, WHETHER APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON A SUBSTANTIAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT.

II. WHETHER APPELLANT’S TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL MISAPPREHENDED THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT AND, IF SO, WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ADVICE WAS BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT.

No. 06-0714/AF. U.S. v. Heidi F. ADCOCK. CCA 36018.

WHETHER, HAVING FOUND THAT THE TERMS OF APPELLANT’S PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT VIOLATED AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION (AFI) 31-205, AND THE AIR FORCE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM PARAS. 5.8.1.2 AND 7.1.1 (7 APRIL 2004), THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN NOT DETERMINING THAT THE VIOLATION “INVOLVE[D] AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION” PERMITTING CREDIT UNDER R.C.M. 305(k).

WEDNESDAY:

No. 06-0600/MC. U.S. v. Darryl S. PHILLIPS. CCA 200400865.

I. WHETHER A SUBSTITUTE CONVENING AUTHORITY CAN ORDER ADDITIONAL CONFINEMENT EXECUTED FOR FAILURE TO PAY AN ADJUDGED FINE AFTER THE SENTENCE HAS BEEN APPROVED AND EXECUTED.

II. IF APPELLANT’S CONTINGENT CONFINEMENT WAS WITH PROPER AUTHORITY, WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF OTHER POSSIBLE PUNISHMENTS ADEQUATE TO MEET THE GOVERNMENT’S NEED.

–Dwight Sullivan

Comments are closed.