This week’s big story is Tuesday’s Project Outreach argument in Diaz, an appeal of a Navy judge advocate’s conviction for sending a roster of Guantanamo detainees to a public interest lawyer. Of course, the biggest story this week could become the weather. I have feelers out to the counsel in Diaz and Yammine as to whether those Project Outreach arguments have been affected by the D.C. area’s blizzard. If anyone has any intel, please let us know. As always, you can reach us at email@example.com.
This week at the Supremes: There aren’t any anticipated military justice developments this week at the Supremes on my radar screen. I continue to monitor the Supreme Court’s web site to see if a cert petition challenging CAAF’s ruling in Loving v. United States will be docketed. (The deadline for filing a cert petition was 29 January 2010. See Loving v. United States, No. 09A-481.
This week at CAAF: CAAF has two oral arguments scheduled this week. First up is Tuesday’s scheduled Project Outreach argument at Pepperdine University School of Law in United States v. Diaz, No. 09-0535/NA. The three granted issues in Diaz are:
I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS MISREAD THE SCIENTER AND NATIONAL SECURITY ELEMENTS OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN REJECTING AS IRREGULAR APPELLANT’S PROFFERED GUILTY PLEA TO A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 133.
III. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN ACCUSED ACTED, INCLUDING HIS MOTIVE, IS RELEVANT TO A CHARGE UNDER ARTICLE 133.
A Wednesday Project Outreach argument is scheduled at Camp Pendleton in United States v. Yammine, No. 09-0720/MC. The granted issue in Yammine is: “WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF FILE NAMES FOUND ON APPELLANT’S COMPUTER THAT WERE SUGGESTIVE OF HAVING CONTAINED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY BUT WHOSE ACTUAL CONTENT WAS UNKNOWN, ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO ARGUE APPELLANT’S PROPENSITY OR MOTIVE TO COMMIT SODOMY OR INDECENT ACTS WITH A MINOR.”
This week at the CCAs: On Tuesday, the Coast Guard Court will hear an oral argument in the case of United States v. Garcia at the Howard University School of Law on this assignment of error: ” THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE DENIED THE DEFENSE MOTION TO EXCLUDE PE 3, A VIDEOTAPE OF THE POLICE INTERROGATION OF APPELLANT, WHEN NO ARTICLE 31(B) RIGHTS WERE GIVEN.” On Thursday, ACCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Ellerbrock, No. ARMY 20070925, on these two assignments of error:
I. THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN EXCLUDING, UNDER MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 412, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SEXUAL BEHAVIOR BY THE ALLEGED VICTIM WHERE THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED.
II. THE TRIAL COUNSEL COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR DURING HIS SENTENCING ARGUMENT WHERE HE ASKED THE COURT MEMBERS TO PICTURE THEIR CLOSE RELATIVES AS ALLEGED VICTIMS OF APPELLANT.