Here is a link to CAAF’s announcement of the Serianne argument scheduled for March 2, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. Here and here are links to our prior coverage of the case. The certified issues in the case are:
(1) whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously held that the duty imposed on sailors by Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5350.4C to notify their commanding officer of an arrest by civil authority for an alcohol-related offense compelled a testimonial communication that was incriminating; and
(2) whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously held that no exception to the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause, including the regulatory exception developed in California v. Byers , applies to the reporting requirement in Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5350.4C
The case of LCDR Matthew Diaz is also set for argument following the Serianne argument. If you don’t know what Diaz is about, (a) you have been in a hole for the last few years and (b) well here are the issues:
(1) whether the lower courts misread the scienter and national security elements of the Espionage Act;
(2) whether the military judge abused his discretion in rejecting as irregular Appellant’s proferred guilty plea to a violation of Article 133;
(3) whether the evidence of the circumstances under which an accused acted, including his motive, is relevant to a charge under Article 133.
If you will recall the Diaz argument at Pepperdine Law School was snowed out in February–how odd does that sentence sound? The argument doesn’t say anything about counsel from Pepperdine Law participating.