This week at the Supreme Court: No military justice items appear on the Court’s schedule this week. Our Denedo lookout is starting his stretching exercises so he’ll be ready when we send him up to the CAAFlog crow’s nest.
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear four oral arguments this week. Tomorrow’s first argument is in United States v. Nance, No. 09-0164/AF, where the granted issue is “WHETHER APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY TO ENGAGING IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE WAS IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD INDICATING THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS DIRECTLY PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE.” Tomorrow’s second argument is in United States v. Wilson, No. 09-0010/AR, where the granted issue is “WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR RAPE WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE EXCEPTED ‘ON DIVERS OCCASIONS’ FROM THE SPECIFICATION AND DID NOT SPECIFY THE SINGLE OCCASION AS PART OF THE FINDING, BUT THE VICTIM ONLY TESTIFIED TO A SINGLE OCCURRENCE AND THE PARTIES ONLY ARGUED THIS SINGLE OCCASION TO THE MILITARY JUDGE.” CAAF will hear two more arguments on Tuesday. The first is in United States v. Mazza, No. 09-0032/NA, where the granted issue is “WHETHER THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY: (1) SOLICITING HUMAN LIE DETECTOR TESTIMONY, (2) FAILING TO OBJECT TO ADMISSION OF THE VICTIM’S VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW, AND (3) PERMITTING THE VIDEOTAPE TO BE VIEWED DURING DELIBERATIONS.” The final CAAF argument of the week will be in United States v. Bush, No. 09-0119/MC, where the granted issues are: I. “WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS’ INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THIS COURT’S DECISION IN UNITED STATES v. ALLENDE, 66 M.J. 142 (C.A.A.F. 2008) PLACES IT AT ODDS WITH THIS COURT’S DECISION IN UNITED STATES v. GINN, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F. 1997)”; and II. “WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS MISINTERPRETED ALLENDE, CREATING THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF SHIFTING TO AN APPELLANT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR WAS HARMFUL.”
This week at the CCAs: On Wednesday, ACCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Lockhart, No. ARMY 20070689. Four assignments of error will be argued: “I. THE COURT-MARTIAL LACKED PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER APPELLANT BECAUSE THE APPELLANT’S BREAK IN ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE TERMINATED JURISDICTION”; “IV. THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN SHE FAILED TO GIVE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE INSTRUCTIONS”; “V. THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF GUILTY TO FORGERY WHERE NO EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE LEASE, IF GENUINE, OPERATED TO THE LEGAL HARM OF ANOTHER, FURTHERMORE, THE LEASE DOCUMENT WAS OF NO LEGAL EFFICACY”; and “VI. THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION WHEN SHE ADMITTED APPELLANT’S FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS INTO EVIDENCE OVER APPELLANT’S OBJECTION.”
This week at the trial level: All eyes will be on Paducah, Kentucky this week, where the trial on the merits in the capital MEJA prosecution of former Army PFC Steven Green is set to start tomorrow.