This week at the Supremes:  I’m not aware of any anticipated military justice developments at the Supremes this week. 

This week at CAAF:  CAAF is hearing two oral arguments this week, both on Tuesday and both in Army cases.  The issue in United States v. Morton, No. 09-0185/AR, is ”WHETHER, AFTER FINDING THE EVIDENCE FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILTY TO THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE AND ITS SPECIFICATION (FORGERY), THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ON A THEORY NOT PRESENTED TO THE TRIER OF FACT.”  The issue in United States v. Clayton, No. 08-0644/AR, is “whether the military judge erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from Appellant’s quarters.”

This week at the CCAs:  The Air Force Court will hear oral argument in two cases tomorrow.  The assignments of error to be argued in United States v. Sanchez del Carpio, No. ACM 37276, are: “ISSUE III – THE MILITARY JUSTICE ERRED BY NOT SEVERING THE TWO SPECIFICATIONS INTO TWO SEPARATE TRIALS; ISSUE IV – THE APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED DURING TRIAL BY THE MILITARY JUDGE’S ERROR OF ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO ARGUE THE EFFECT THE TRIAL HAD ON THE VICTIMS IN THE AGGRAVATION OF APPELLANT’S SENTENCE.”  The issue to be orally argued in United States v. Skrede, Misc. Dkt. No. 2009-09, is “WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY EXCLUDING APPELLEE’S TWO DRUG TESTING REPORTS ON THE BASIS THAT THEY ARE AFFIDAVITS AND THEREFORE TESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS SUBJECT TO THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.”  [Disclosure:  I'm one of SrA Skrede's appellate defense counsel.]

ACCA will hear oral argument on Wednesday in United States v. Watson, No. ARMY 20080175.  The four issues in the case are:

I  WHETHER AND HOW THIS COURT’S RECENT OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. MCPHERSON,
68 M.J. 526 (ARMY CT. CRIM. APP. 2009) IMPACTS APPELLANT’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR.

II  WHETHER APPELLANT’S RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY [REFRAD] WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND REGULATION(S) AND THE IMPACT, IF ANY, THE RELEASE MAY HAVE HAD ON HER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE.

III  WHETHER APPELLANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONVENING AUTHORITY’S ACTION, WAS PROPERLY VOIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARMY REGULATIONS 600-8-24 AND 135-175.

IV  WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT MAY ACT TO VOID THE APPELLANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE AFTER THE ISSUE OF THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THAT DISCHARGE HAS BEEN RAISED AS AN APPELLATE ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT.

This week at the court-martial trial level:  A motions session will be held Wednesday in the capital retrial of United States v. Walker.  The issues being litigated include the applicability of life without eligibility for parole to this case, the trial counsel’s proposal to limit voir dire, and whether the government may offer a statement of a co-conspirator as a statement against interest.  [Disclosure:  I was one of LCpl Walker's appellate defense counsel, as were at least two other CAAFlog contributors, one of whom continues to represent him at the retrial.]